General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Snowden findings corroborated by second whistleblower [View all]Pholus
(4,062 posts)But by all means lets continue with the Heather fantasy that this all happened in the open.
Quantity does not make quality, as was amply demonstrated by your post 41.
I wasted my time perusing your mini blue linky paradise of largely irrelevant material. The original FAS one, not your hack job cut and paste. Helpful hint: next time, throw out the crap and present only the relevant links. Oh yeah, you won't because it looks a hell of a lot less supportive of your assertion.
Your list boils down to five transcripts actually containing ANY discussions relevant to dragnet surveillance (Wyden's amendment to the FISA reauthorization) where basically you have Wyden and Udall's vague warnings that the NSA is not possibly telling the entire truth about minimization. That is immediately followed by a similarly vague smackdown from DiFi about endangering an "effective intelligence program" and the defeat of the amendment. There is a similar discussion in the House version, but neither discussion makes any actual sense until you interpret the words in light of the Guardian UK's revelations. You know, the ones from your "20 year old asshole traitor." Guess you did manage to illustrate the public service he performed at least. Thanks for that!
But maybe you'd like to argue how it is all laid out in there. I'd love to see you try to make a credible argument but let's face it: There is no way you can actually put enough lipstick on that particular pig.
So open debate my ASS! But pretend harder and maybe you can convince some other rubes. Personally, I'm on to you.