Lawrence O'Donnell: Edward Snowden's Christmas Message Was 'Wildly Overblown,' 'Provably Untrue'

[ProSense]

[msanthrope]

1. Winters in Russia are cold. Really, really cold. nt

[Tx4obama]

2. A short post below related to the video

Lawrence O’Donnell Calls Snowden’s Christmas Speech ‘Absurdly, Wildly Overblown’

On the same day that journalist Glenn Greenwald suggested that his defense of NSA source Edward Snowden is no different than MSNBC’s defense of President Barack Obama, that network’s Lawrence O’Donnell took Snowden to task for making “provably untrue” statements during his alternative Christmas message.

“Every time he speaks, every time, he will say things that are absurdly, wildly overblown,” O’Donnell said. “He says that the government is, quote, ‘watching everything we do.’ That is of course impossible. No one is watching everything we do. That capacity doesn’t exist.” After listing off more of Snowden’s ominous warnings about the surveillance state, O’Donnell said, “I find it odd that every time he speaks he says provably untrue things like this.”

O’Donnell’s guest Joy Reid, who shared her own criticisms of Greenwald on Twitter earlier in the day, agreed with O’Donnell assessment, noting that Snowden’s revelations “were not new if you read The New York Times.” What Snowden did was add “made up, horror story ideas that came from Edward Snowden’s own mind.”

Finally, alluding to Snowden’s suggestion that we are living in an “Orwellian” society, Reid added, “to say that this is worse than 1984 means that you never read 1984.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lawrence-odonnell-calls-snowdens-christmas-speech-absurdly-wildly-overblown/

[SomethingFishy]

3. Ok so we've gone from Snowden is a Chinese/Russian spy

to he's a traitor, to he didn't release anything people already didn't know to they are all "made up horror stories".

Impressive... most impressive.

[ProSense]

4. Not sure about anyone else,

"Ok so we've gone from Snowden is a Chinese/Russian spy to he's a traitor, to he didn't release anything people already didn't know to they are all 'made up horror stories'."

...but I've always found his claims delusional.

The ridiculous hyperbole is likely an attempt to hide the fact that he really hasn't revealed anything new. Sure, he confirmed some things that were already outrageous, but by making wild claims, he seems to be attempting to create the impression that it's different from what we already knew.

[SomethingFishy]

7. Thank you.

For making my point. You are now claiming that everything Snowden said was true but we already knew all about it.

Somehow I doubt that's the point you were expressing when it all went down. Matter of fact I remember many many threads claiming Snowden, and by proxy Greenwald was lying. I remember thread after thread bashing Snowden and Greenwald, threads not even about the scandal, just threads bashing the shit out of both men. I remember threads insisting that the NSA was not spying on American citizens.

Well they were. Still are. And now, you claim you knew that all along.

Sorry Pro, I'll ride the ACA train with you all day. This? Not so much.

[ProSense]

9. No

"You are now claiming that everything Snowden said was true but we already knew all about it. "

...I have always said this. Whistleblowers, including Thomas Tamm, exposed these activities long before Snowden. In fact, they actually revealed illegal activities.

[SomethingFishy]

12. So those dozens upon dozens of anti-Greenwald and anti-Snowden posts were all just saying

that Snowden didn't tell us anything new?

I'm sorry Pro, but you attacked Snowden and Greenwald with a vengeance. Anyone not sitting on your side of the screen would have taken all those posts to mean something more than "he didn't tell us anything new". Now maybe that was your intention, but from a readers standpoint it sure didn't look like it. At least from this readers standpoint....

[ProSense]

15. Huh?

"So those dozens upon dozens of anti-Greenwald and anti-Snowden posts were all just saying that Snowden didn't tell us anything new? "

Did I make that claim?

[SomethingFishy]

16. Yes you did. You just claimed that all along you have been saying that Snowden

didn't reveal anything new. Yet when the scandal broke you posted.. I bet over 100 threads that in one way or another took a shot at either or, or both of them. Using whatever means you could to attack them. Are you denying you made all those posts? And are you denying that you just told me that you have thought all along that Snowden didn't reveal anything new?

Look if this is how you want to debate this then I am done. I am not going to spend my evening listening to you deny what you just said 5 minutes ago.

Here's the quote from two posts up. I understand it was a long time ago and you may have forgotten.


"..I have always said this. Whistleblowers, including Thomas Tamm, exposed these activities long before Snowden. In fact, they actually revealed illegal activities."

So have you always said this? Or not?

[ProSense]

18. LOL!

"Yes you did. You just claimed that all along you have been saying that Snowden didn't reveal anything new. "

Yes, I've been saying it all along. I didn't say that's all I've been saying.

"Look if this is how you want to debate this then I am done. I am not going to spend my evening listening to you deny what you just said 5 minutes ago. "

You're upset that you misinterpreted my comment?

[Thinkingabout]

29. Actually Bush said in a news conference in 2005 phone call records was being collected.

What has to be added Bush probably had clearance on this information and dud not steal the files from the NSA. I don't like Snowden having my private information and moving it around the world.

[JDPriestly]

41. We have been told that "all nations do this surveillance thing." That's what they were

saying to soothe our fears a week or two ago.

So if all nations are doing surveillance of the records of our private communications, do we really want all the data nicely packaged in one place in the world and stored for years and years, maybe for forever?

Snowden moving my private information around the world is the least of my worries. Having some terrorists or China or some other phony friend or obvious foe getting to it is what scares me. And when it is all in one place, that is a lot easier than it would be if the phone companies destroyed it in a reasonable amount of time.

Snowden has respect for privacy. Bush did not. I would prefer Snowden had my information. I would not want Bush to have it. Ughh. Not that either of them would be interested.

[Thinkingabout]

49. Snowden is not known for intelligent decisions and therefore we do not know who will and has this

Information. It would have been safer to have never stolen information in the first place and left it with the providers and NSA. Snowden is a loose cannon, never know where he is going to roll.

[JDPriestly]

97. Who is NSA? I know that one of them lied to Congress.

Other than that, I don't think I can trust them at all. Why should I? I do not trust anyone who wants to see my phone bills. Normally the only people who want your phone bills are the police or opponents in law suits to which you are a party. I try to avoid attracting the attention of either the police or law suits.

So the NSA needs my phone and e-mail and Google search records for what reason? To find a terrorist? I don't think that I am a candidate for a terrorist search. It's unlikely that NSA thinks I am. So why are they collecting my phone bills, my internet records, etc.?

I do not believe that the metadata collection is really about preventing terrorism. Finding, that is predicting, who is a terrorist and more important stopping a terrorist by reviewing phone bills would be impossible. It would be a matter of luck. You might find who talked to a terrorist before an act of terror, but there is a good possibility that you would not.

Finding who belongs to what organization, who attends what meetings, who believes in what religion, who is friends with whom, which family members get along best, who hangs out at a bar and who hangs out in a church, that information you can glean from the metadata. And why does the NSA want it? No good reason is what I think.

My question to all who think that collecting metadata is OK: Have you ever reviewed, let's say a year's worth of someone else's, some stranger's telephone bills? Think about it. Think about what you might find if you connected the calls on one bill with the calls on other bills that exchanged calls with the first bill you looked at. Think about what that might tell you if the first bill was the bill of a politician, let's say a senator. Just think about it.

You would probably find out the names of the senator's donors, friends, stock broker, pastor, campaign manager, people he was looking to hire, friends who fixed things for him beginning with his hearing to his feet to everything in between. You'd have a real profile of the individual without needing to follow him around or listen to his calls.

And once you had that information, you would have a lot of power. You would know when he lied, to whom he lied, when he missed meetings, why, how often he talked with his wife, his best friend, his mother, everything about him. And that knowledge means political power, political leverage in many cases.

People are crazy if they don't understand why Snowden is upset with what he saw at the NSA.

[randome]

131. 'Crazy'? Even Snowden won't tell us what he saw!

He only recently said he showed something to his superiors. After months of somehow 'forgetting' to tell us! And even then he was vague about what he claims he saw.

It must be something really, really scary if he can't tell us, right?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Thinkingabout]

134. The information you provide can be used by rogue employees such as Snowden who has

stolen files of phone call records. Furthermore you state the example of law enforcement using phone call records in investigating crimes, you just made the best argument for the NSA collecting phone call records. In the case of the NSA they are into also trying to curtailing planned attacks by those who wants to do harm to our citizens. Thank you for pointing out how phone call records are used in investigating crimes.

[bvar22]

144. Trust the NSA?... Its "ONLY" the Meta-Data?

Here. Lets let Joe Biden (version 2006) why its not a good idea.

[ucrdem]

145. Ahem. He's talking about the previous president and veep.

[bvar22]

153. And THAT makes a difference to you?

We are talking about POLICY that will be in place long after Obama leaves the White House.

I'm STUNNED that anyone could embrace this insanity.
[font size=3]Do you really believe that NSA Spying on Americans it is OK when the Democrats do it,
but not OK when the Republicans do it?[/font]
I find this "flexibility" impossible to comprehend.

You do know that the Republicans will sit in the White House again?
What will you do then?

Do you have any principles or values that YOU stand for,
or do you simply just accept whatever the Democratic Party Leadership says is OK?

Please tell me that you forgot the "sarcasm" thingy at the end of your post.

[ucrdem]

156. I think it makes a difference to Joe, yes. nt

[bvar22]

166. I asked if it makes a difference to YOU.

[font size=3]CENTRISM!!....because its is so damned EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do![/font]



Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.
Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.
Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

I thank the protectors of our Democracy,
and hope that I would have the courage to do The-Right-Thing in the same situation.

[ucrdem]

169. Pushing Snowden is not centrism, it's rightism.

Does the change of administration make a dif to me? Um, yes. Does it make a dif in NSA policy? Bigtime. And the narrative pushed by your assorted heroes as shown above is utterly disingenuous. And that's putting as gently as I know how.

[bvar22]

179. Supporting protections for Whistle Blowers, restrictions on Government Secrecy and Surveillance,

.....and 4th Amendment prohibitions on Government Snooping is [font size=3] is RIGHTISM !!????[/font]

Well, at least everybody here knows where you are coming from,
and Mussolini made the trains run on time.


War is Peace
Ignorance is Freedom
Big Brother LOVES you...as long as it has a "D" after its name

[ucrdem]

220. Calling Snowden a persecuted whistleblower is rightism, yes.

As far as we know he's a thief and a traitor. The 4th amendment has very little to do with Snowden's crimes and the rest of your post has very little to do with anything.

[Katashi_itto]

224. +10000

[Lifelong Dem]

34. And?

[treestar]

13. Maybe being stuck in that hotel like that

gave Eddie too much time to imagine things. And where he is now, they probably are watching all he does.

[Cha]

79. That's just it, Tx.. somebody told Snowden that it was a good

idea to use as much hyperbole and gross exaggeration(read Lies) as possible or it's just in his fucking nature.

Rest my case..

"Finally, alluding to Snowden’s suggestion that we are living in an “Orwellian” society, Reid added, “to say that this is worse than 1984 means that you never read 1984.”

Reid
thanks Tx

[PoliticalPothead]

162. These are the same people who said it was 'wildly overblown'

When Snowden said he could listen in on anyone, including the president. It wasn't long til we found out that wasn't hyperbole, and I have a feeling the same will happen with these new 'overblown' statements.

[PowerToThePeople]

5. Patriot

[ProSense]

6. "Patriot":

[treestar]

14. lol

[Tx4obama]

17. a REAL true American patriot BELOW

p.s. I'm still looking forward to Snowden standing trial for the felonies he admitted to committing.

[truebrit71]

20. Below what?

All I see there is a centrist Dem that has perpetuated the vast majority of dumbya's policies...including all of the really fun unconstitutional ones...

Next?

[ProSense]

40. This

"All I see there is a centrist Dem that has perpetuated the vast majority of dumbya's policies...including all of the really fun unconstitutional ones... "

...wasn't one of "dumbya's policies": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024227754

Hope, for tens of millions of Americans.

[truebrit71]

75. ...i wasn't talking to you ProShill

...sick of your boot-licking Obama Is God posts...i really really am...

[davidpdx]

77. Attacking other's DUers is against the TOA

You really should be ashamed of yourself for that post.

[truebrit71]

139. ...and yet strangely enough I don't...

Maybe because it wasn't an attack rather the voicing of a frustrated opinion?

[davidpdx]

214. Yes, it was an attack

Voicing frustration I would totally understand. Changing someone's name to add the world "shill" is an attack. You are insinuating they are getting paid for posting.

[truebrit71]

222. I wasn't insinuating anything...

....

[davidpdx]

223. Yes you were

You called a user a shill did you not?

Look at the definition:

shill-a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

Don't like that one, let's try another...

shill- To act as a shill for (a deceitful enterprise).

Now who is being deceitful?

[truebrit71]

225. No I wasn't...

Look at the definition: Insinuate: to suggest or hint slyly;

I didn't hint, slyly. I didn't suggest, slyly. I said it. Categorically. Ergo I didn't insinuate a damned thing..

FYI I'm not the first, and I'm sure I won't be the last either..

[davidpdx]

227. You are in denial and it isn't in Egypt

You engaged in name calling by calling him "proshill". It's funny how you continue to downplay exactly what you did.

BTW I wasn't the one who alerted on you. Most of the time it's not worth bothering demonstrated by the outcome.

[truebrit71]

228. Nope. Wrong.

I'm not down-playing anything I did. You just don't seem to be able to wrap your head around it...but I'm the one in denial

Happy New Year!

[U4ikLefty]

78. Hey, you just survived a jury by 3-3...congrats.

Someone has a thin skin.

[treestar]

93. That was wrong

the jury system is shit. That was a clear insult.

[truebrit71]

137. No it wasn't...

...it was me voicing an opinion that I an not alone on DU in having...

[Fawke Em]

172. Yep...

The OP is much like MSNBC.

BTW, Greenwald, in addition to helping blow the whistle on the extent of NSA spying, is also a rescuer of animals, particularly dogs. I'll take his side over corporate-toady shilling every time.

[ProSense]

173. That's it,

The OP is much like MSNBC.

BTW, Greenwald, in addition to helping blow the whistle on the extent of NSA spying, is also a rescuer of animals, particularly dogs. I'll take his side over corporate-toady shilling every time.

...Greenwald should not be criticized because he loves animals.

Thanks for sharing that.

[Fawke Em]

180. What I'm saying is that I'm tired of DUers

bashing Greenwald and Snowden for blowing the whistle on corruption. You'd think a bunch of so-called liberals would be happy that someone had the gonads to do something that protects the average American citizen from its own MIC-controlled government. It's obvious - as we've seen with Manning, et al - that going through the "proper" channels DOES NOT WORK, so extraordinary measures were needed to expose this shit.

Instead, we get thread after thread from people like you who seem to think O'Donnell's very Obama-administration kiss-ass explanation is "funny" instead of, well, kiss ass. And MSNBC tends to do that to the point that its beginning to look like the pretzel network (that Faux News does it for Republicans is NO excuse. We should be better). Look, Obama is better than Bush, but he HAS defended and extended many of the policies Bush put in place that I would hope most liberals abhor. If this spying was so necessary, how come it didn't stop the Boston Marathon bombing? Because it's not there to do that - it's there to gather information on the average citizen and use that information to propagandize and manipulate us.

My point regarding the animals is that I find it hard to square half the stupid shit you've spewed about his alleged "ego" against the fact that the the guy is near selfless in his rescue of strays. Usually egotists don't "lower" themselves to picking up dogs out of the gutter or the trash and take them in. Never mind that you missed the point that he blew the whistle on NSA spying.

[ProSense]

189. Here's

What I'm saying is that I'm tired of DUers

bashing Greenwald and Snowden for blowing the whistle on corruption. You'd think a bunch of so-called liberals would be happy that someone had the gonads to do something that protects the average American citizen from its own MIC-controlled government. It's obvious - as we've seen with Manning, et al - that going through the "proper" channels DOES NOT WORK, so extraordinary measures were needed to expose this shit.

Instead, we get thread after thread from people like you who seem to think O'Donnell's very Obama-administration kiss-ass explanation is "funny" instead of, well, kiss ass. And MSNBC tends to do that to the point that its beginning to look like the pretzel network (that Faux News does it for Republicans is NO excuse. We should be better). Look, Obama is better than Bush, but he HAS defended and extended many of the policies Bush put in place that I would hope most liberals abhor. If this spying was so necessary, how come it didn't stop the Boston Marathon bombing? Because it's not there to do that - it's there to gather information on the average citizen and use that information to propagandize and manipulate us.

...what you're basically saying: You're tired of people disagreeing with you, and those who do are offering nothing but "Obama-administration kiss-ass" explanations.

Maybe the "so-called liberals" are the ones who bought into Snowden's BS.

Still, why should people care what you're "tired" of when you have so little regard for their opinion?

[Fawke Em]

216. No. That's not what I'm basically saying.

I haven't sputtered hardly a word in your kiss-ass threads until now.

And, I would have a regard for your opinion if it varied at all.

[Sheepshank]

186. you clearly intended to insult.

try and rise above the pretense...I'M NOT BUYING IT

[Bobbie Jo]

221. It was juvenile and petty.

Period.

[treestar]

140. Your opinion is of pro sense and how you don't like her posts

Nothing to do with any issue. You are sick of reading about someone who doesn't agree with you. do you complain elsewhere of being told to STFU? That's about what you said to Prosense. You are sick of her posts, so she shouldn't post, right?

[ProSense]

143. Imagine that from a Greenwald Snowden fan.

[truebrit71]

146. ...and again you interject without knowing what you are talking about...

...i am a fan of neither...

[ProSense]

148. "i am a fan of neither"

So why are you so upset by this OP?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024237714#post22

[truebrit71]

151. Because it is another example of a "liberal" sellout...

...Larry doing his best "reasonable democrat" bit like a well-trained monkey...

[ProSense]

155. ? If you're not a "fan" of Greenwald and Snowden, why

"...Larry doing his best 'reasonable democrat' bit like a well-trained monkey..."

...exactly are you smearing anyone for criticizing them?

You seem awfully upset for not being a "fan."

[truebrit71]

158. I don't have to be a fan..

..to be disgusted at the actions of O'Donnell...i realize that might not work within the strict constraints of your black and white world, but that's where it is..

[ProSense]

160. You're

"I don't have to be a fan...to be disgusted at the actions of O'Donnell..."

..."disgusted" that he criticized Snowden, but you're not a Snowden "fan."

Does that mean, you're just pissed off that O'Donnell voiced an opinion?

[Number23]

209. Yes it was. And s/he knows that as does that jury that let it slide. Attacks on Prosense often

are allowed to stand but yet, we're all supposed to believe that the jury system here "works."

[truebrit71]

138. That's good to know...

I figured it would get alerted on by "someone"...

[ProSense]

142. LOL! "sick of your boot-licking Obama Is God posts"

Glad to know that I'm getting under your skin.

I love you.

[truebrit71]

147. Not sure if that's sad...

...or just truly pathetic...

[ProSense]

149. Question

"sick of your boot-licking Obama Is God posts"

...is that "sad" or "truly pathetic"?

[truebrit71]

152. Answer

Figure it out yourself...

[ProSense]

157. LOL!

I don't think you realize what you just did.

[truebrit71]

159. ROFLMMAO!!!

I know EXACTLY what you're doing though, and I'm not biting...

[ProSense]

163. LOL!

"I know EXACTLY what you're doing though, and I'm not biting..."

More proof that you have no idea.

[Fawke Em]

182. What a childish post.

[ProSense]

188. Seems like

"What a childish post."

...projection: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024237714#post172

[Fawke Em]

217. Hmmm...

I didn't giggle like a school child and roll over on my ass.

[RC]

58. And I am still looking forward to the promised Hope and Change he promise.

Where is it? Surely not in the slowest, longest recovery on record.

[bvar22]

150. "Hope" has worn pretty thin around here,

and with Unemployment running out for many today,
"hope" is all they have left.
"Hope" doesn't cost the RICH a single penny,
and it don't feed the kids.

Hope & Change ain't gonna play in 2016.
That is so DONE.

[Whisp]

21. I tink you mean Comrad, not Patriot. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

43. And I think you should learn to spell before correcting others, comrade.

[Whisp]

52. and I think you are a great spell checker

judgement of character, in regards to the Snowy One, not so much.

[U4ikLefty]

154. I "tink" you are correct. nt

[Progressive dog]

104. Should that be recaptioned "Russian Patriot"

since I'm certain he is not an American Patriot? He doesn't even live in our country anymore and he hates it too much to return.

[PoliticalPothead]

165. 'he hates it too much to return'

No, no, no. You got it backwards. Snowden doesn't hate America, America hates Snowden.

[Progressive dog]

219. Snowden left the USA, it is still where it was

and he isn't here. LOL

[Motown_Johnny]

8. "an unrecorded unanalyzed thought"

Clearly, that statement is insane.

Children born today will have their thoughts recorded and analyzed. Every thought, recorded and analyzed.


No, they won't.

At the very least, this guy suffers from paranoia. He needs help.

[FSogol]

10. +1 n/t

[Luminous Animal]

28. Privacy, as a political concept, is not merely the idea that you keep your thoughts to yourself.

Privacy is the idea that you can express your thoughts, via any medium, without the government collecting those thoughts.

So, not so insane. Broadcast, cable, and internet TV monitor your viewing habits... eBooks are rolling out software to monitor your reading habits... not just what kind of books you read but which passages you linger on and or return to, the ones that you mark, and whether or not you finish the book. Search engines track the websites that you visit and your search topics. Retail outlets track your purchasing habits. Municipalities are installing street cameras and face recognition capabilities and license plate readers. The government requires the passenger manifest for flights. Your cell phone can track your movements as can your transit passes. Social networks, including personal creations, compile your info.

We DO know that TelCos, are freely handing over their databases to the government under the sham of of sweeping warrants rubber stamped by ultra-right Republican judges.

All of this behavior... reading, watching, driving, riding mass transit, flying, shopping, the music and video that you write and perform, and socializing are all expressions of thought.

[Thinkingabout]

33. If you are so worried about your privacy then you should be very concerned about the files

Snowden has stolen from the NSA, he has a ticking time bomb, he does not have full control of his actions. He has invaded the privacy of US citizens and did not acquire a proper warrant.

[Lifelong Dem]

54. You are dreaminig he does

he has a ticking time bomb

[Luminous Animal]

73. Hahaha! Snowden hasn't the power to use the information he has against me.

The government, on the other hand, does.

[Fawke Em]

183. And that's the point in a nutshell.

Thanks for clearly explaining it to people who just don't seem to grasp that concept.

[ljm2002]

174. You seem to have a misconception...

...about the nature of the files Snowden took from the NSA.

He does NOT have the phone metadata records, he has information ABOUT the phone metadata records and how the NSA gathers and uses them. He does not have email headers, he has information ABOUT the email headers and how the NSA gathers and uses them.

He has empowered us to act on these invasions of our privacy by our government, in that we now have STANDING to sue because it is now PROVEN that the government gathers up data (okay, okay, metadata) on ALL its citizens. Which a few short years ago would have been cause for widespread outrage, but nowadays we are supposed to shrug and say "Oh well, terrorism dontcha know".

As for proper warrants, the NSA was engaged in improper spying under GWB and when that was discovered and people were outraged, our government turned around and made it all legal. The so-called "warrants" under which phone and email metadata are gathered are just broad rubber stamps.

[Thinkingabout]

192. There has been a legal method for a very long time, read the Fourth amendment Again.

In 1979 the FISA Act was passed creating a special court to handle fast turn around on warrants dealing with wire tapping, etc. Until the FISA Act was passed the president had the power to order wiretapping without oversight. There is not a clause which prevents "rubber stamping" so the courts will rule with the laws and should never legislate from the bench.

[ljm2002]

195. Nice try, no cigar...

...as you failed to address the points that I made concerning the data that Snowden had in his possession. Your post that I was responding to said:

"If you are so worried about your privacy then you should be very concerned about the files

Snowden has stolen from the NSA, he has a ticking time bomb, he does not have full control of his actions. He has invaded the privacy of US citizens and did not acquire a proper warrant."

My response pointed out that Snowden does not possess any private information on you or anyone else. Given how much people like to hang their hats on the "It's only metadata!" argument, you'd think those same people could distinguish between the telephone and email data collected by the NSA, vs. data that is ABOUT these programs.

Your facts about FISA are correct as far as they go. So what was that scandal during the Bush Administration, you know, the warrantless wiretapping stuff? Oh, yeah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_%282001%E2%80%9307%29

The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy ("warrantless wiretapping&quot concerns surveillance of persons within the United States who were in contact with "terrorists" during the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",[1] part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S.

Critics, however, claimed that the program was in an effort to attempt to silence critics of the Bush Administration and their handling of several hot button issues during its tenure. Under public pressure, the Bush administration ceased the warrantless wiretapping program in January 2007 and returned review of surveillance to the FISA court.[2] Subsequently, in 2008 Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements.

[Thinkingabout]

197. Ok, if you are looking for a cigar, what authorization did Snowden use to get clearance on copying

Files from the NSA or clearance to divulge classified information? How do you know he has not taken phone call records?

[ljm2002]

204. There is no question that Snowden broke the law...

...he admits it himself. So did Manning, so did Ellsberg. IOW, yawn.

As for the phone call records, nothing that has been published indicates that Snowden actually possessed the phone metadata records or the email header records. The nature of the releases so far would strongly suggest otherwise. You asserted that he does possess such data. So it is up to you to support your assertion.

[Thinkingabout]

207. Snowden claims to have more information in files, I don't have proof if he does or does not have

Phone call records, in fact he has had many stories of which changes or does not change. His claim of having proof just might have proof with the meta data to prove it is being collected since his claim of "proof". Any information he has gleemed whether or not he has released is criminal. He also claimed to have access to the Whitehouse from his position, and indicated he could "wiretap" at will but this has been refuted.

[ljm2002]

208. You claimed...

...that Snowden "has invaded the privacy of US citizens". That if we are so worried about the NSA, then we should be worried about Snowden. Never mind that, IF he does have such data, he has it BECAUSE THE NSA HAS IT.

Anyway. I assume you are not one of those people here who made fun of Snowden because "all he has is Powerpoint slides". Nor are you one of those people who said "It's only metadata, what's the big deal?" And surely you are not one of those who claim we already knew all of that stuff, so, you know, shrug.

You say "He also claimed to have access to the Whitehouse (sic) from his position, and indicated he could wiretap at will but this has been refuted". It has not been refuted. It has been questioned, and people have made statements one way or the other. Some have supported his contention, pointing out that IF he knew a phone number or email associated with the President, that he could plug that information into the software that runs checks, and the surveillance would occur automatically.

You say "Any information he has gleemed whether or not he has released is criminal." Yes, we've already been over that. He broke the law. But then again, the NSA has also broken the law (*). Do they get a pass?

(*)
1 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds

(cites 2,776 "incidents" or violations of the rules or court orders for surveillance (...) from April 2011 through March 2012

2 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/nsa-fisa-court-opinion_n_4311787.html

A Secret Court Judge Warned The NSA It Was Close To Breaking The Law -- Then Gave It More Power

The top judge on the secret court that oversees the National Security Agency's surveillance activities in 2010 warned the agency that it could face criminal sanctions if it tried to make use of information it had collected without the necessary court authorization.

3 - and of course, who could forget Clapper lying bald faced to Congress -- which is, get ready for it: ILLEGAL

[Thinkingabout]

210. Snowden claimed he had proof, he must have phone call records or is he lying again.

Has Snowden gone to court to get warrants to collect anything from NSA, doubt the warrant can ever be produced. Has NSA gone to court to get warrants, yep, makes NSA legal. Did Snowden get clearance to divulge classified information, nope, did Clapper lie, notwhen you listen to his complete answer.

Has NSA faced criminal sanctions about their collecting data, probably even the judge realized the proper warrants was requested and authorized.

[ljm2002]

212. No, Snowden did not get any warrants...

...that has been stipulated, again and again and again, yet you continue to harp on it. "But he broke the LAW, wah wah wah!"

In your world, apparently, one does not question whether FISA warrants operate as we citizens of the United States have a right to expect: namely, targeted investigations. Rather, they allow sweeping surveillance with little oversight, with FISA courts that are stacked (all appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) and that operate in total secrecy. Yeah, that's a recipe for proper governance, you betcha. "yep, makes NSA legal". Wow, what a keen analysis you present there. "Did Clapper lie" "notwhen (sic) you listen to his complete answer" -- no, you are wrong. He lied, period. Now he may have thought he needed to lie, BUT HE LIED. And lying to Congress is ILLEGAL. He could have answered truthfully: he could have said, "The answer to your question is classified and I can answer in a closed session" or something like that. But he did not do that. HE LIED. WHICH IS ILLEGAL in the circumstances. So he too should get the Snowden treatment from your ilk: "He's a criminal nyah nyah nyah". From now on, any time he opens his mouth, you should be saying "he's lying again". But of course, you do not: because when Clapper lies, you think it's all about context. But when Snowden reveals programs that go far beyond what most of us imagined, context is irrelevant.

In the meantime, the surveillance state grows, our police become militarized, the First and Fourth amendments are in shreds... but that's okay, because Snowden is bad, so there.

[Thinkingabout]

213. Now we have some truth coming, we will see how the SC rules.

[Lifelong Dem]

36. How is it private if you use the medium where the public can view all?

FB, Twitter and all.

[Thinkingabout]

51. You are talking about a whole different ball game. Just because a data base available on the

Internet does not give your phone call record. To keep your life private would mean giving up the communication devices, it would be left to individuals.

[Lifelong Dem]

56. How does this relate to what Snowden said about analyzing ones thoughts?

[Luminous Animal]

72. It is private if the government is restricted from compiling it all into a massive data base.

It is a new frontier of privacy and rules that we have to figure out.

The founders of this country understood it. And the U.S. Supreme Court understood that law enforcement could not open open our mail without a warrant.

[treestar]

94. So they can sell you shit!

And no one has complained, or "had a conversation" about any of that! No one stays off the internet out of fear of that.

Face it, people don't care. They have the privacy they want.

Snowjob didn't do a damn thing! Congress even requires warrants now! Why didn't the original exposers of this issue that Joy Reid identifies get the canonization Snowden is getting? They were the ones that brought it out. Without breaking the law or leaving for a country with a far worse record. And congress reacted by requiring warrants! Even Dubya signed that!

[JDPriestly]

99. I correspond with my healthcare providers online. That is nobody's business, not even the NSA's.

I assume the website on which I e-mail my doctors is encrypted. But apparently even that does not stop the NSA. So, not everything the NSA is collecting on the internet is in a public space.

Our internet bank interactions are also supposed to be encrypted as are our credit card purchase. I assume, however, that the NSA is picking up all of that stuff. That is what I have read.

[treestar]

108. The NSA is not doing that

The "conversation" is about the NSA having phone call data. When they had that without warrants, there was no big deal made, as Joy Reid described. This canonization of Snowjob is about making a hero of him. Some people need heroes and Obama was only President, so they've found a new one.

[JDPriestly]

116. Did you read this?

. . . .

Under PRISM, the NSA gathers huge volumes of online communications records by legally compelling U.S. technology companies, including Yahoo and Google, to turn over any data that match court-approved search terms. That program, which was first disclosed by The Washington Post and the Guardian newspaper in Britain, is authorized under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act and overseen by the Foreign ­Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

Intercepting communications overseas has clear advantages for the NSA, with looser restrictions and less oversight. NSA documents about the effort refer directly to “full take,” “bulk access” and “high volume” operations on Yahoo and Google networks. Such large-scale collection of Internet content would be illegal in the United States, but the operations take place overseas, where the NSA is allowed to presume that anyone using a foreign data link is a foreigner.

. . . .

John Schindler, a former NSA chief analyst and frequent defender who teaches at the Naval War College, said it is obvious why the agency would prefer to avoid restrictions where it can.

“Look, NSA has platoons of lawyers, and their entire job is figuring out how to stay within the law and maximize collection by exploiting every loophole,” he said. “It’s fair to say the rules are less restrictive under Executive Order 12333 than they are under FISA,” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html

I suspect that many of the Snowden critics have not read the articles published in various news sources about the various NSA programs. They aren't just collecting metadata. And all they have to do is get e-mail routed say, to Ireland, and then they can catch it and that is an "inadvertent" seizure of the e-mails of an American. I was shocked to discover that my e-mail account was identified as being in Ireland at one point. I don't think it normally has anything to do with Ireland. The Washington Post article is very interesting and worth reading in its entirety.

[treestar]

123. legally, with court ordered terms?

What's the scandal there?

[JDPriestly]

126. We don't have to just go along with things that are now considered to be legal.

If we don't like the surveillance, and I don't, then our Congress can end it.

My prediction is that there will be some huge scandal as NSA abuses the information it is collecting and then Congress will act.

It is quite possible that the Supreme Court will declare the massive amounts of information that the NSA is collecting on each of us to be a violation of our rights. We shall see. But I don't expect the Supreme Court to admit that the NSA is violating our rights until there is some huge scandal. On the other hand, Scalia could vote with those who might be more interested in protecting our rights. The stage has been set for Supreme Court consideration.

[treestar]

128. Prediction of what scandal?

Anything is possible. It's before the courts. Ultimately we do have to go along with what the courts decide. We can still protest it, of course.

People who don't like Roe v. Wade are stuck. But they still talk. Funny thing, none of Ed's dark warnings have proven true at all. We and the tea partiers can say whatever we want, even about the NSA. Our government is very bad at being tyrannical.

[ljm2002]

176. The conversation is about much more than phone call data...

...and if you had been following this story you would know that.

How about the NSA building in back doors to widely used encryption software? We have discussed the fact that certain encryption methods are theoretically uncrackable even by the NSA. But that of course doesn't work if they have built in a back door.

It is not surprising they did that. The Clipper Chip debacle undoubtedly taught them that if they want to build in a back door, they'd better not be public about it.

What is surprising, is how compliant many people are about these issues. That actually astounds me.

[ljm2002]

175. Really, you answered your own question...

...when you ask "Why didn't the original exposers of this issue (...) get the canonization Snowden is getting?"

Maybe because he actually provoked discussion of the issue. Maybe because his actions captured the attention of people in a way that previous attempts did not. Maybe because, due to his actions, we can now sue the government for more information because now it is proven they have been gathering data on ALL citizens.

When Congress "reacted by requiring warrants", the action was intended to paper over the reality, and it worked very well for awhile. The fact that "Even Dubya signed that" should have been a clue.

[Mojorabbit]

38. They are working on the technology. Not paranoia.

http://www.nature.com/news/brain-decoding-reading-minds-1.13989

[JDPriestly]

42. Actually, when you think about all the research being done on the brain these days,

it's possible that none of us will have private thoughts in the future. New technologies arise out of the imaginations of geniuses. And Snowden may be one.

Twenty years ago, i would never have thought that the I-Phone was possible.

Today it is reality. Unbelievable.

I think Snowden knows a lot more about where technology is going than O'Donnell and his friends or any of us on DU.

[Jamaal510]

11. Careful, Lawrence,

or else you'll get called an "Obama shill" by the Snowden fans here, like how Stephanie Miller was called yesterday on one thread. Snowden and Greenwald are nothing but WINGNUTS, plain and simple. Once they start losing steam and the pressure gets to them, they resort to using provably-false, hyperbolic statements just like how most prominent Republicans do, such as the one about MSNBC defending Obama 24/7 and the one where the government watches our every move (even though that is impossible). To me, this is nothing but fear-mongering on the part of Snowden and Greenwald, just to rile up people. I noticed that Libertarian-leaning people like these two, in general, seem to be experts at generating paranoia about the federal government. They are perennial cynics about government and always pout about whoever is in charge. And the guy who Snowden supported for president last year even came out against Civil Rights. Who is Snowden to talk about freedom, then, especially after fleeing to a country where it is at a premium? How is he a "patriot" after revealing our national security secrets to some of our biggest adversaries?

[davidpdx]

76. Anyone who criticizes Greenwald and Snowden and defends Obama is deemed a shill

Even the cool-aid meme has been recycled as of lately. Granted we have a right to be critical of any of these three. Attacking another DUer though (like what happened up thread) is against the rules.

[Cha]

82. Yes, I saw that tonight.. we must be

"paid shills".. 'cause we don't think much of a$$holes.

[davidpdx]

87. If we are paid shills then dammit I'm getting ripped off

I never got my check.

[treestar]

127. unemployment is no longer a problem

we can always get jobs as paid shills!

but yes the pay is really low! I haven't accumulated enough to get a check yet!

[treestar]

92. They have so convinced themselves of Snowden's fantasies

as truth. Then can't explain why they are still here posting. Since the government knows their every thought - it must be disappointing that the government doesn't find any of their thoughts threatening. Or wouldn't the men in white coats be after them by now?

[JDPriestly]

103. The reason I post my thoughts so freely is that I am way beyond the retirement age.

There isn't much anyone can do to me.

[treestar]

107. That's not the NSA

Employers don't have quite that capacity to spy on anyone either - and that's another issue. People have control over what they put on Facebook.

And on top of that, how many employers care? We used to talk politics at lunch as a group from the office. No one felt like that might deprive them of the job.

[JDPriestly]

119. It depends on what you do for a living I suppose.

[JDPriestly]

102. Obama agrees with the critics of this program (at least some of us).

He appointed a panel to review it and suggest changes. I read some of the proposals. They seem to move in the right direction although it all depends on how they are implemented and whether there is enough day-to-day truly independent oversight.

And it is very difficult to have truly independent oversight in a situation in which an organization like a court or the NSA is so-to-speak "in charge."

The independent overseers are likely to be at the same kind of disadvantage as public defenders in a juvenile or dependency court. They play a role but generally dare not stand up to the prosecutors in a court in which guilt is pretty much a given usually.

[davidpdx]

215. I agree with you on that

and I think the changes are warranted. I certainly wouldn't want to job of being the independent oversight. It would be like having this done to you --->

[JDPriestly]

218. There are people who can take it. I couldn't either.

[Whisp]

19. Thanks for calling it what it is, Lawrence.

Snowden is a laughing stock. Or should be. Compleat Fabricatin' to the The Ones Easily Snowed. Nice movie title.

And Lawrence, can you do a follow up on the State Department Sexual Assault cover up scandal that was in the news in June and you made a segment of it, linked here:
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/state-department-cover-up-33164355621
I believe that the new investigation was to be completed by the end of summer of this year.

Is this a cover up of a cover up that the media is now covering up?

Could you check that out, please?

[truebrit71]

22. Whatever Larry...

...centrist dems make me ill...

[ifyousayso]

23. If Snowden was a "patriot"...

If Snowden really only cared about threats to our civil liberties, he would have revealed only information about the NSA collecting data on U.S. citizens. A U.S. citizen who is "patriotic" would not reveal information about U.S. foreign espionage activities. I think Snowden intended to embarrass U.S. officials, compromise U.S. efforts at gathering information critical to our national security interests, and get a lot attention for himself at the same time. So, I do not consider Snowden a "patriot". I consider him a self-centered traitor. Anyone who claims to care about civil liberties and then flees to Russia is either disingenuous, delusional, very confused, and/or very ignorant of Russian history.

[Luminous Animal]

30. Yes. Because the U.S. is so super cool that it can violate the privacy rights of citizens

all over the world.

And then it can forge super secret agreements with other countries to spy on us (using our technology) and then share that info!

See! Not un-Constitutional at all!

So looking forward to that uber-Democratic country of Saudi Arabia getting a juicy spying contract from the U.S. government to spy on U.S. citizens.

[Octafish]

24. Keep the checks comin', MSNBC!

They're COMCASTIC!!!!!!!!

[Incitatus]

25. Many know who ultimately writes his paycheck. nt

[Octafish]

35. I think it affects his reporting.

At least it works that way with a lot of journalists.

Media Millionaires

Journalism by and for the 0.01 Percent

By Peter Hart
FAIR, July 1, 2013

Mainstream journalism is, we’re often told, in a state of severe crisis. Newsroom employment began to decline as a result of corporate takeovers in the 1990s. Then the digital revolution destroyed the advertising market, plunging the industry into serious doubt about its very business model.

But times aren’t rough all around. There are many pundits and TV anchors who are doing very well in the media world, racking up millions of dollars from their media contracts, book deals and lucrative speaking fees. Though they don’t generally approach the compensation packages awarded to network morning show hosts like Matt Lauer or evening anchors like Diane Sawyer, they’re not exactly hurting.

Of course, being the boss means the biggest payday—and media company CEOs have been posting unbelievable incomes. In 2012, CBS head Les Moonves made $62 million, Disney’s Robert Iger made $37 million and Rupert Murdoch of Fox took home a comparatively modest $22 million (New York Times, 5/5/13). Don’t feel sorry for Murdoch, though; as No. 91 on Forbes’ list of the world’s richest people, with an estimated net worth of $11.2 billion, he’s unlikely to go to bed hungry.

The media business outstrips other industries in generously compensating its top executives (New York Times, 5/5/13), and those resources could of course be put to better use by hiring reporters. But that’s not the way the system works. And it’s not just the bosses getting rich. Indeed, many high-profile members of the media elite live a rather charmed life. The journalism business looks to be in a disastrous state—but the view from the top is just fine.

Thomas Friedman

New York Times foreign affairs columnist Tom Friedman has written a number of bestsellers, and regularly holds forth on outlets like public TV’s Charlie Rose show. All of the globe-trotting and yearning for a “radical centrism” in American politics—where sensible climate policies could be paired with cuts to social spending—have paid off handsomely.

CONTINUED...

http://fair.org/slider/cover-story-media-millionaires/

Dunno what COMCAST pays, though.

[Incitatus]

37. Of course

I'd love to see Noam Chomsky be given an hour of reporting 5 days a week without producers telling him what he can't say.

[ProSense]

26. New Greenwald

whine: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024238275

[Turbineguy]

27. So I googled my name and...

my unlisted phone number can be easily obtained. But none of the links seem to be from the evil NSA.

[JDPriestly]

105. Doesn't that make you wonder why the NSA wants to collect that information?

I do not believe that they are just holding on to it and not analyzing it and correlating it and mapping the social universe. There are other databases that they could use if they want to find out information about specific individuals. There is some other reason for their collecting this information. I would like to know what it is.

[Egalitarian Thug]

31. Why on earth anybody listens to that corporate concubine is a mystery.

He's an elitist conservative born into the ruling class that believes the rich should rule. Plus, he killed the West Wing.

[Fawke Em]

184. You forgot to add the rolling, laughing smiley.

Apparently, the only way to carry on a conversation with the Snowden/Greenwald haters is to laugh at everything and roll on the ground like childish oafs.

<-- smiley of my own

[SidDithers]

32. Paul Revere is a liar? Say it ain't so...

Sid

[treestar]

125. He saved our freedom!

Or maybe not, as he admits these Orwellian programs are still in existence. In the US. But not Russia! Where is that thumb drive full of news that tyranny is coming!

[JDPriestly]

39. Whose opinion of the scope and intrusiveness of the NSA programs am I supposed to

trust?

That of O'Donnell who apparently read the reports in the news and maybe a few of the FISA court's orders, Vanity Fair and maybe talked to a few NSA or administration spokespeople or that of Snowden who actually worked in a sensitive position in the programs and learned first-hand at a desk plugged into the NSA's systems what was going on?

I think I'll go for Snowden. Yes. He has an imagination. That doesn't make what he says untrue. It doesn't even suggest he is exaggerating. Snowden has watched the CIA and NSA computer use expand, grow, become much more intrusive, and he knows where it is headed. I trust Snowden's opinion, his appraisal of the current reach and potential reach of the NSA's programs. I trust his opinion and view on this more than I trust Obama's. Snowden had a front seat. None of the others sharing their opinions do or did.

I think that O'Donnell and those who agree with him are just indulging in wishful thinking.

[Lifelong Dem]

47. If I was Snowden and wanted to sell my BS, I'd overblow this too

That is exactly what he is doing. Someone who ended up in Russia over this needs a good reason and blowing this out of proportion he is trying to save his bullshitting ass. He may fool some but the majority see right through all this as O'Donnell.

[treestar]

95. +1!!!

He could be projecting, as in Russia, they very likely are spying on his every move. Damn how can anybody make such a hero of this guy they'd risk their own reputation for sanity by repeating his nonsense!

[Egalitarian Thug]

65. Much worse than wishful thinking. He is the voice of the Democratic elite.

Those defenders of exploitation and culling the herd, as that they don't have to look at the results of their avarice. The nice people that are all for equality, as long as they keep their power and privilege and remain free to steal. The people that donate to the local shelter and tell their councilperson to pass laws against sitting on the sidewalk.

IMO, they are worse than republicans, you know exactly where the republican stands and what they want, these mealy-mouthed parasites are the ones that make me feel like I have to shower after being around them.

[Corruption Inc]

44. LOL, TV propaganda is funny!

They actually find some people dumb enough to believe it too!

[ProSense]

45. Speaking of

"They actually find some people dumb enough to believe it too!"

..."dumb enough," how does one get trapped in Russia, relying on surrogate whining to regain freedom:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024238275

Mission not accomplished, huh?

[Corruption Inc]

53. Ever hear of the NSA? They're illegally and unconstitutionally spying on us, LOL

Somewhere in the hate speech you post you seemed to forget that and who's responsible for exposing it.

[ProSense]

57. They're

"Ever hear of the NSA? They're illegally and unconstitutionally spying on us, LOL"

..."spying" on you. I can assure you, they can't see what I'm doing now. I mean, I'm not a "child born today."

[DisgustipatedinCA]

46. Q: How can you tell when authoritarian shills are on the ropes?

A: when there's an entire thread devoted to Snowden's dishonesty, and yet there's NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of someone posting even one of those alleged lies.

Moral of the story: don't believe your own propaganda so much that you end up standing there naked for the world to see what you haven't yet noticed.

[ProSense]

48. Actually,

"A: when there's an entire thread devoted to Snowden's dishonesty, and yet there's NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of someone posting even one of those alleged lies."

...this particual thread is about Snowden wild imagination (delusional), which is not the same as "dishonesty."

Moral of the story: Your comment makes no sense.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

50. Still waiting for your answer.

It's really difficult when the answer doesn't come from a fax machine, I understand. But you're going to need to try anyway, since the entire thread is without a shred of substance.

You are able to say something of substance, aren't you?

[ProSense]

55. Losing track? n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

59. You accuse Snowden of dishonesty without any examples. Let's talk about liars.

You've accused Snowden of lying several times. You haven't provided a single instance. Now you're running from your own words.

Let's talk about liars, ProSense.

[ProSense]

60. LOL!

Having flash backs?

The OP is about his delusional comments. You keep bringing up "dishonesty."

You accuse Snowden of dishonesty without any examples. Let's talk about liars.

You've accused Snowden of lying several times. You haven't provided a single instance. Now you're running from your own words.

Let's talk about liars, ProSense.

You appear to be getting highly upset. Start a thread about "liars." Again, this one is about Snowden's delusional comments.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

61. Are you able to name any of these delusional comments?

[ProSense]

63. Here

Enjoy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024237714

[DisgustipatedinCA]

64. Are you contractually bound to reply to every post written to you?

That would be lots of fun...we could make this a 12,000 post thread. Thanks for the Larry O'Donnell link, but if you're not willing or able to discuss Snowden's alleged delusions in your own words, I can't take you seriously.

[ProSense]

66. Ooh, now you're adding your version of "substance" to the thread

[DisgustipatedinCA]

67. test

[ProSense]

68. ...ing 1, 2, 3

Mission Accomplished!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

69. Test 2

[ProSense]

70. Here's

something to read before you post "Test 3": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024202440#post20

Enjoy!

[Tx4obama]

62. Bottom line is that Snowden has openly and publicly admitted that he committed crimes

Hopefully he will stand trial soon for the felonies he committed and accept his punishment without too much whining.

[solarhydrocan]

84. Clapper openly and publicily lied to congress

Any hopes for him?

If Bush, McCain or Romney was president every so called "Democrat" in the country would be up in arms and calling for impeachment.

Party politics have ruined the nation.

[treestar]

91. Imagine how he'll exaggerate every aspect of it

during the trial, it will of course be "persecution." The government lawyer being able to ask questions of any witness or make any comment will mean it's a "show trial."

Then jail of course will be "torture." He will do all he can to provoke them having to put him in high security, so he can call it "torture."

[treestar]

90. Listen to what LOD says on the video

It's too easy to just generally attack Prosense and pretend you are facing up to the issue.

[treestar]

89. Watch the video

Where he exaggerates wildly. LOD is correct on that.

[JDPriestly]

113. I think that Snowden knows much more about what is going on at the NSA and what the future

of technology available to the NSA will permit the NSA to do than does O'Donnell.

Snowden is very gifted, possibly a genius, with regard to technology. He knows what he is talking about. He is making predictions based on what he has seen and what he knows about where the technology is going.

It is easy and may feel good to ridicule what he is warning us about, but it is not wise. Snowden worked at the NSA in a fairly responsible position, at least in a position in which he had access to a wide range of documents and information including most likely plans for future operations. I do not think he is exaggerating that much when he says that in the future we will not be able to enjoy private thoughts. I suppose there could be machines in the future that are like MRIs that are small devices and can almost or even fairly precisely read what parts of a brain are active at a given moment, whether a person's thoughts are angry or happy, etc.

What can be read from DNA at this time is already just amazing. We all give off electrical charges. Who knows what we will learn to "read" from vital signs like electrical charges, MRIs, DNA. Really.

1984 was prophetic. Snowden is also warning us about what the future is likely to bring.

[ucrdem]

115. My understanding is that he couldn't hack high school.

"Possibly a genius?" I don't think so.

[JDPriestly]

117. That's like dissing Bill Gates because he dropped out of college.

People don't finish high school for many reasons. Snowden would not have been given the access and promotions he received at the NSA if he were not brilliant.

[ucrdem]

118. His story doesn't add up, you're 100% right on that score. nt

[treestar]

121. The things he says in the video are demonstrably untrue

By observation of the real world.

And why just rely on Snowden's word alone? We are called all kinds of names if we trust President Obama to do his job as best he can. Yet you are going along with Snowden's conclusions in that speech just because he knows some stuff he's not telling us?

[Marr]

136. +1

God, that's the truth. I like the weasely word play below, as well. "I'm talking about *delusional* statements, not *dishonest* ones!".

The English language is often noted for it's abundance of synonyms with similar, but not quit exactly the same meaning. I sometimes wonder if propagandists have a harder time in less... painterly languages.

[Lifelong Dem]

71. Snowden should go back to work at NSA since he says he still works there

[Cha]

80. He works there from

from Russia!

[JI7]

74. snowden sounds like a fucking idiot

[Cha]

81. Yeah, and it's refreshing to have him called

out on it.

Thanks LO'D~

[sagat]

83. Thanks, nice to hear some reasonable adults speaking on this for a change.

[JI7]

85. Does ANyone have a Link to Snowden's comments on Pussy Riot ?

[Number23]

86. Oh my God. I watched that TWICE I loved it so

I can't tell which is better. The comments from Joy Reid about the "horror stories" Snowden pulled out of his hiney in order to impress gullible Americans or the comment from the other guy who was actually a bit more supportive of Snowden and admitted that Snowden had helped "awaken" a group of Americans who had somehow managed to go ten years without knowing this information.

Even when trying to be nice, you can't help but insult Snowden's fan base.

[treestar]

88. yeah why weren't they so "concerned" in 2005

when NSA was doing the same thing without warrants?

I'm beginning to think they are just in love with Eddie. Now they'll believe everything he says, even though it is wildly exaggerated.

[randome]

132. But he's so dreamy!

Whoops, wrong Libertarian.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

133. The guys Joy Reid mentioned

must have been middle aged and married! As for Eddie Munster, he's about as dreamy as Eddie Snowden!

[treestar]

135. James Risen

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Apparently not dreamy enough!

[Le Taz Hot]

96. And MSNBC is about as believable as

Faux Nooz these days. Everything POB does is great and perfect and wonderful. Constant grinding away at the right wing AND progressives. Hosts who are supposed to be liberal yet, except for Chris Hayes, wouldn't even meet with the MSNBC workers who want to unionize and that wasn't even mentioned on MSNBC.

Snowden is demonized by the POB fanboys/girls because he's defying this administration.

[solarhydrocan]

101. Look at the division on this thread...

It looks the same at every forum.

The authoritarians/party faithful/obey me types vs. the Jeffersonian Democrats.

The old definitions don't work anymore. It's a New World Order. The Authoritarian/Fascists vs. Left Liberals. The Kucinich's vs. the Liebermans. Kucinich has as much in common with Lieberman as Snowden does with Clapper- they both work for the same side, supposedly.

[LordGlenconner]

170. Meh, there's nothing new about that

That narrative has been playing out in one form or another for eons and will continue to do so long after you and I are dust in the wind.

[treestar]

109. You did not watch the video

Snowjob is the one with fanboys/girls. Hanging on to his every word no matter how illogical, exaggerated or just plain untrue.

Why not make saints of those who discussed this in 2005, when it was done without warrants! That "conversation" led to Congress requiring warrants!

[Le Taz Hot]

112. Sorry,

I stopped reading at "snowjob."

[treestar]

120. And didn't watch the video

Let's talk about things we have not seen or heard and prevent ourselves from seeing reality! Just like Snowjob.

[Le Taz Hot]

122. I was referring to your post

109. And again,

[Puglover]

130. Yeah I can't make it through

those cloddish plodding posts either.

[Scuba]

98. Every time they say that, Snowden's claims are provent to be true.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[treestar]

110. Watch the video

Snowy's claims are clearly delusional.

[Logical]

100. LOL, you are really just looking silly at this point, entertaining though! nt

[ProSense]

106. Another

"LOL, you are really just looking silly at this point, entertaining though!"

...word (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024227900#post91) you shouldn't use: "silly"

For your enjoyment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024202440#post20

[ucrdem]

111. "A child born today"?? Eddie, you big dope, you forgot it's Christmas.

You're supposed to be thinking about JC, not freakin' "Great Britain's George Orwell." Talk about tacky. Sometimes I think the Irish need to reconvert that forsaken island.

[GoneFishin]

114. Claim that world is round is provably untrue.

There are mountains, hills, sinkholes, and don't forget about the Grand Canyon. Therefore the world is flat.

What an asshole.

[stevenleser]

124. Kick nt

[DCBob]

129. Thank you Lawrence for a common sense perspective on this issue.

[nilesobek]

141. The discourse goes from a 1 to a ten

on an anger meter pretty rapidly around here. Overall it seems that both sides, Snowden and the NSA broke the law. We can create monsters out of thin air or wait for the facts. Neither side is very forthcoming in releasing information. The NSA cites national security and Snowden is slowly releasing his material and Putin has ordered him to stop it on threats of deportation.

We don't have enough information to declare heroes and badguys.

If I had to guess, I would say the NSA is looking pretty bad here, since Clapper lied and everytime they say something it gets refuted quick and then they cite national security again. Is it really national security at stake or is it the survival of intelligence agencies at stake? Have they done things to ordinary American citizens that are illegal and immoral?

Because the wars are over, all information should be released, to you and I, after all, their bosses.

[bvar22]

161. I'm not surprised O'Donnell would say something like that on MSNBC.

I had to stop listening to him a while back
when he said that Obama's move to the Conservative RIGHT was "brilliant" political strategy because that takes the issues away from the Republicans.

I jumped up and screamed at the TV,

"You dumb, RICH Fuck!
There are Millions of us out here who Work-for-a-Living that will have to LIVE with the consequences of the "brilliant" political strategy of Moving to the Conservative Right.

If I wanted to LIVE with Conservative Right Policy,
I would vote for a damned Republican".

I still can't believe that someone who appears to be intelligent
could say something so stupid.

I see by another Pro post that O'Donnell is still at it.
Does O'Donnell disagree with Joe Biden too?

Oh Well.
Standard MSNBC pro-corporate shilling.
I love Rachel, and she occasionally pushes the limit,
but they all know who their BOSS is when it is paycheck time.

[ProSense]

164. Here's what Greenwald said

on MSNBC:

“Every journalist has an agenda,” Greenwald told Welker. “We’re on MSNBC now, where close to 24 hours a day the agenda of President (Barack) Obama and the Democratic Party are promoted, defended, glorified, the agenda of the Republican Party is undermined. That doesn’t mean the people who appear on MSNBC aren’t journalists. They are.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/26/glenn-greenwald-i-defend-edward-snowden-like-msnbc-defends-obama-24-hours-a-day/

Apparently, Greenwald is upset that MSNBC is undermining the Republican agenda:

Glenn Greenwald: I Defend Snowden Like MSNBC Defends Obama '24 Hours A Day'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024231709

I jumped up and screamed at the TV,

"You dumb, RICH Fuck!
There are Millions of us out here who Work-for-a-Living that will have to LIVE with the consequences of the "brilliant" political strategy of Moving to the Conservative Right.

If I wanted to LIVE with Conservative Right Policy,
I would vote for a damned Republican".

Greenwald is "rich" too.

Glenn Greenwald, NSA Documents & Checkbook Journalism - BFP Roundtable #02
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024228191

[bvar22]

167. I don't have a problem with someone being RICH.

I DO have a problem with the RICH promoting POLICY that advances the agenda of the RICH
at the expense of the Working Class and The Poor.
I am cursed with the ability to distinguish between the two.

US Wealthy Have Biggest Piece of Pie Ever Recorded
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/09/11-6

Rates of unemployment for families earning less than $20,000 - have topped 21 percent
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_JOBS_GAP_RICH_AND_POOR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-16-08-11-23

Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html

Obama Appoints Bain Capital Consultant Jeff Ziets to Top Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662209

Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210

The Totally Unfair And Bitterly Uneven 'Recovery,' In 12 Charts – HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662029

Larry Summers Gets 'Full-Throated Defense' From Obama In Capitol Hill Meeting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014553343#post1

Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022516719

Older Workers:.Set Back by Recession, and Shut Out of Rebound
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/booming/for-laid-off-older-workers-age-bias-is-pervasive.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3&

New Rule Passed by Congress and signed by President Obama signals Kiss of Death for Pensions
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100694955

Corporate Profits Hit Record High While Worker Wages Hit Record Low
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1270541/corporate-profits-wages-record/?mobile=nc

THIS ^ does NOT happen by accident.
It is the result of carefully planned and implemented Economic Policy.
It requires careful preparation, marketing, buying the right politicians, message control, courts packed with Conservative Corporate Rights Judges, and the marginalization and suppression of any opposition.

[ProSense]

168. Neither

"THIS ^ does NOT happen by accident. "

...does this:

<...>

What follows is a PARTIAL list of Obama’s accomplishments so far. Unlike many such lists, there is a link to a citation supporting every single one.

<...>

Wall Street Reforms and Consumer Protection

Ordered 65 executives who took bailout money to cut their own pay until they paid back all bailout money. http://huff.to/eAi9Qq

He pushed through and got passed Dodd-Frank, one of the largest and most comprehensive Wall Street reforms since the Great Depression. http://bit.ly/hWCPg0 http://bit.ly/geHpcD

Dodd-Frank also included the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau http://1.usa.gov/j5onG

He made it so that banks could no longer use YOUR money to invest in high-risk financial instruments that work against their own customers’ interests. http://bit.ly/fnTayj

He supported the concept of allowing stockholders to vote on executive compensation. http://bit.ly/fnTayj

He wholly endorsed and supported the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009 that would close offshore tax avoidance loopholes. http://bit.ly/esOdfB http://bit.ly/eG4DPM

He made a deal with Swiss banks that permits the US government to gain access to the records of criminals and tax evaders. http://bit.ly/htfDgw

He established a Consumer Protection Financial Bureau designed to protect consumers from financial sector excesses. http://bit.ly/fnTayj

He oversaw and then signed the most sweeping food safety legislation since the Great Depression. http://thedc.com/gxkCtP
- more -

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/15/a-long-list-of-president-obamas-accomplishments-with-citations/

Ally Bank To Pay $98 Million For Charging Higher Interest To Non-White Borrowers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024208931

U.S. orders mortgage servicer Ocwen to help borrowers with $2 billion

By Emily Stephenson

(Reuters) - U.S. officials on Thursday ordered the largest nonbank mortgage servicer to provide $2 billion in help to underwater borrowers to resolve allegations of misconduct that led to thousands of people losing their homes.

Ocwen Financial Corp must reduce loan balances for struggling homeowners and refund $125 million to foreclosed borrowers under an agreement with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and officials from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

Ocwen failed to account for borrowers' payments, gave false reasons for denying loan modifications and robo-signed legal documents, the consumer bureau said.

In many cases, after Ocwen began servicing loans, it did not respect trial modifications that had already been agreed to by the lenders, consumer bureau Director Richard Cordray said.

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-financial-regulation-ocwen-idUSBRE9BI0ZT20131219

Elizabeth Warren:

<...>

When I worked to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I pushed hard for steps that would increase transparency in the marketplace. The crisis began one lousy mortgage at a time, and there is a lot we must do to make sure there are never again so many lousy mortgages .

CFPB made some important steps in the right direction, and I think we’re a lot safer than we were .

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. I didn’t have a chance to vote for it because I wasn’t yet in the Senate, but if I could have, I would have voted for it twice.

Even so, the law is not perfect. And so it’s important to ask: Where are we now, five years after the crisis hit and three years after Dodd-Frank?

<...>

Powerful interests will fight to hang on to every benefit and subsidy they now enjoy. Even after exploiting consumers, larding their books with excessive risk, and making bad bets that brought down the economy and forced taxpayer bailouts, the big Wall Street banks are not chastened .

They have fought to delay and hamstring the implementation of financial reform, and they will continue to fight every inch of the way .

That’s the battlefield. That’s what we’re up against. But David beat Goliath with the establishment of CFPB and, just a few months ago, with the confirmation of Rich Cordray .

David beat Goliath with the passage of Dodd-Frank. We did that together – Americans for Financial Reform, the Roosevelt Institute, and so many of you in this room. I am confident David can beat Goliath on Too Big to Fail. We just have to pick up the slingshot again .

Thank you .

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

Elizabeth Warren: Cordray Vote ‘A Historic Day For Working Families’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took to Twitter on Tuesday in praise of the Senate's vote to advance Richard Cordray's nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, calling it a "historic day for working families."

Elizabeth Warren ✔ @elizabethforma

I couldn't be more pleased that Rich Cordray will finally get the vote that he deserves. This is a historic day for working families!
1:11 PM - 16 Jul 2013

47 Retweets 26 favorites

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-cordray-vote-historic-day-for-working

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gets busy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023372682

SEC Will Require Companies To Report CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratios
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023694931

Regulators Finalize Stricter Volcker Rule - Reuters/HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158305

NLRB to Prosecute Wal-Mart For Violating Workers’ Rights (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024053560

[bvar22]

181. Didn't bother to wade through your Gish Gallop NonSense.

I've been there and done that.

Cheers!

[ProSense]

190. Ah, name calling.

[Penicilino]

171. Obama is President. He is a Democrat Snowden leaked the document while Obama was in office

Expect MSDNC pundits to confirm Greenwald's assertion that they defend the Obama administration close to 24 hours a day.

Yeah, I know, they have a token conservative. Still close to 24 hours

[Fawke Em]

185. True.

Except that there are so-called "liberals" on that show, as well, so maybe the result is closer to 22.5 hours.

[ljm2002]

177. O'Donnell gave himself away...

...early on when he talked about the "Snowden lovers".

I did notice, however, that both he and Joy Reid backtracked and talked about how important this conversation is. You know: the conversation that we would not be having were it not for Snowden's dastardly actions.

Meh.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

178. "The work he has done is vitally important..." O'Donnell

Essentially what O'Donnell is complaining about isn't about what Snowden said, but how he said it.

[ProSense]

187. So maybe

"The work he has done is vitally important..." O'Donnell

Essentially what O'Donnell is complaining about isn't about what Snowden said, but how he said it.

...those referring to O'Donnell as "well-trained monkey," "corporate-toady," and "dumb, RICH Fuck" are right?

LOL!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

191. No. But, those portraying Snowden as a Traitor, Narcissist, spy, etc are even more hyperbolic.

And, O'Donnell and the others, agree that what Snowden did was invaluable.

[ProSense]

193. Those

"No. But, those portraying Snowden as a Traitor, Narcissist, spy, etc are even more hyperbolic."

...opinions exist: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024202440#post20

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

194. Sadly so. Thery also existed when Ellsberg made his revelations.

[ProSense]

196. Different case, and

"Sadly so. Thery also existed when Ellsberg made his revelations."

...Ellsberg took a different route. Snowden doesn't appear to want to face the consequences of his actions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023236549

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

198. He'd be a damned fool if he did.

In the meantime, how many drone "pilots" are facing "consequences" for murdering civilians?

Should the Jews, Communists, gays, have bravely stayed in Germany faced the "consequences"?

[ProSense]

199. See, different path. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

200. See whisltle blower and Daniel Ellberg's opinions of Snowdens actions.

In Snowden's case the different path would most likely lead to prison. As I said, he be a damned fool if he took that path.

[ProSense]

201. It's still a different path. Snowden is unwilling to face the consequences. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

202. So is the NSA and the president.

But, they have less to lose than Snowden.

[ProSense]

203. That doesn't make sense. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

205. Of course not. The NSA and president are unlikely to be threatened with trials.

Fair or otherwise.

And, so what if he doesn't "face the consequences"? Will a trial and imprisonment for Snowden bring the spies and those who enabled them to trial? There's a whole bunch of real criminals who aren't even threatened with "facing the consequences" because the law either protects them or ignores them.

[ProSense]

206. If he

"And, so what if he doesn't 'face the consequences'?

...isn't willing to face the consequences, it seems that pushing for a pardon is fairly silly.

Still, judging from Greenwald's recent comments (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024238275), it's clear that Snowden has no intention of returning to the U.S. to face the consequences.

[smb]

226. Lawrence O'Donnell & Mitt Romney: Separated At Birth

"You know I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms...."

[BobUp]

211. Does anyone

have a cable box or a satellite dish receiver in the same room where you watch the TV?

If you do, be notified that the little red light that indicates it's on is really a camera, and, you are being watched.

Got a temperature sensing shower head in your bathroom? You're being watched.

Have a cell phone, laptop, tablet, gps, iPhone? You're being followed and tracked.

Meanwhile, back in the USSR....

drink up Eddie!