The NSA Said Edward Snowden Had No Access to Surveillance Intercepts. They Lied.
For more than a year, NSA officials have insisted that although Edward Snowden had access to reports about NSA surveillance, he didn't have access to the actual surveillance intercepts themselves. It turns out they were lying.1 In fact, he provided the Washington Post with a cache of 22,000 intercept reports containing 160,000 individual intercepts. The Post has spent months reviewing these files and estimates that 11 percent of the intercepted accounts belonged to NSA targets and the remaining 89 percent were "incidental" collections from bystanders.
So was all of this worth it? The Post's review illustrates just how hard it is to make that judgment:
Among the most valuable contents — which The Post will not describe in detail, to avoid interfering with ongoing operations — are fresh revelations about a secret overseas nuclear project, double-dealing by an ostensible ally, a military calamity that befell an unfriendly power, and the identities of aggressive intruders into U.S. computer networks.
Months of tracking communications across more than 50 alias accounts, the files show, led directly to the 2011 capture in Abbottabad of Muhammad Tahir Shahzad, a Pakistan-based bomb builder, and Umar Patek, a suspect in a 2002 terrorist bombing on the Indonesian island of Bali. At the request of CIA officials, The Post is withholding other examples that officials said would compromise ongoing operations.
Many other files, described as useless by the analysts but nonetheless retained, have a startlingly intimate, even voyeuristic quality. They tell stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes. The daily lives of more than 10,000 account holders who were not targeted are catalogued and recorded nevertheless.
....If Snowden’s sample is representative, the population under scrutiny in the PRISM and Upstream programs is far larger than the government has suggested. In a June 26 “transparency report,” the Office of the Director of National Intelligence disclosed that 89,138 people were targets of last year’s collection under FISA Section 702. At the 9-to-1 ratio of incidental collection in Snowden’s sample, the office’s figure would correspond to nearly 900,000 accounts, targeted or not, under surveillance.
more...
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/07/nsa-said-edward-snowden-had-no-access-surveillance-intercepts-they-lied
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)the NSA groupies always tell me so. And DU is infested with them.
What is laughable is that EVERYTHING Snowden has claimed has proven to be true. EVERY denial the NSA has made has proven to be a lie. Yet the security state fanatics still attack Snowden!
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)He just keeps dribbling things out so that he can give them the rope to hang themselves over, and over, and over. He makes an assertion, but doesn't provide proof at the outset, they deny, and then he provides the proof. And they can't help themselves, they always deny. You'd have thought by now somebody at the NSA would have noticed this pattern and realized that with each denial shown to be false, the agency's reputation drops yet again, and slowly, drip by drip, even their staunchest Congressional supporters start easing back from them.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)He handed it over to them. They are going through it and figuring out the stories and releasing the info.
George II
(67,782 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)any opinions about the NSA lying to you again?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Exactly who would that be?
Let me explain something to you that a lot of DUers don't seem to understand of late.
Taking a position that is not 100% on-board with one concept does not mean that one's position is 100% in the opposite extreme. e.g. Not finding Snowden credible does not mean finding the NSA to be credible at all times, nor does it make one an NSA groupie, or even a defender of same.
What DU seems to be infested with is posters who cannot grasp this very simple idea. Saying that one would like to see open-carry laws abolished, does NOT mean that one believes all firearms should be prohibited. Saying that one disagrees with the SCOTUS decisions on Citizens United and Hobby Lobby does NOT mean that one believes the SCOTUS has never rendered a just decision on anything.
Are you with me so far? If one believes that most cops are decent people doing their jobs well (which is, in fact, the case), that does NOT mean that one believes police misconduct doesn't exist, or that they are defending those in law enforcement who engage in brutal behaviour.
Are you getting it now? There are more than two extreme positions on any issue, and shades of gray that exist (at least out here in the real world) between those extremes. To believe that one must be at one extreme or the other - 100% for, or 100% against - is naive at best, and utterly ridiculous.
As for "EVERYTHING Snowden has claimed has proven to be true," the facts say otherwise.
Snowden claimed that he could access anyone's email, even the President's. That has never been proven.
Snowden claimed that the NSA could "read people's thoughts as they typed them". Again, never proven, not even remotely.
Snowden claimed that he could see anyone's on-line activities, such as purchasing products via the internet. Yet again, never been proven.
Snowden at first claimed that he hadn't gone through 'normal channels' to alert his superiors to what he perceived to be wrongdoing on the part of the NSA. And then a few months ago, he claimed that he HAD made his concerns known to his superiors via emails. Was he lying then, or is he lying now? Obviously both can't be true. And if Snowden is the intellectual genius he claims to be, one would think that he had the common sense to copy and secure such emails - but apparently he didn't.
Despite your own "claims", I doubt that there are any "security state fanatics" here. Calling Snowden out on his unproven assertions, and questioning his credibility and his motives, does NOT a "security state fanatic" make. It simply means one doesn't believe Snowden's version of events in this particular instance - and there is ample reason not to.
The notion that if one doesn't swallow Snowden's story whole means one is an NSA groupie is right up there with right-wingers who assert that pro-choicers are against anyone having babies, or that someone wishing another a Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas makes one anti-Christian.
That kind of black-and-white thinking used to be the sole domain of ignorant RWers. It's sad to see it being promoted here.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)I find it interesting that your lot spends enormous time and energy dissecting every little comment Snowden has made for total accuracy, yet you never seem to post anything critical of the NSA. The ad hominem attacks on Snowden, like your pathetic display above, are either intentional attempts or foolish errors diverting attention from the real issue.
NSA is the issue. NSA's extreme law breaking is the issue, Snowden is not.
You can be someone who distrusts Snowden without being an NSA groupie. But anyone who simply attacks Snowden without acknowledging how important his revelations have been IS AN NSA GROUPIE.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... for the past four years. So the idea that I spend enormous time and energy on Snowden, or any other topic here, is rather ridiculous on its face.
"... dissecting every little comment Snowden has made for total accuracy ..."
I believe that when someone asserts that the NSA, or any other gov't agency, is engaged in illegal activity, accuracy in supporting those assertions is a necessity. If Snowden can't be totally accurate when it comes to the facts underpinning his accusations, he should never have made such serious accusations in the first place.
Snowden didn't accuse a gov't-run cafeteria of serving stale breadsticks. He accused a gov't agency of breaking the law. Given the seriousness of the accusations, being TOTALLY ACCURATE would be in keeping with the allegations made.
"NSA's extreme law breaking is the issue, Snowden is not."
And yet when asked point-blank by Brian Williams in a recent interview about the alleged law-breaking by the NSA, Snowden could not cite a single instance of them having done so.
" ... anyone who simply attacks Snowden without acknowledging how important his revelations have been IS AN NSA GROUPIE."
Thus far, Snowden has not disclosed any NSA activity that was not previously known - nor has he been able to pinpoint any illegality. Again, questioning Snowden's credibility when he makes accusations he can't back-up is not an attack - it is merely pointing out the facts.
" ... you never seem to post anything critical of the NSA."
There are many, MANY posters here who have consistently posted scathing comments about Obama and Democrats, but have never posted anything critical of the GOP. They claim they are good Democrats. By your way of thinking, they must ALL be lying RW trolls - because if they were really Democrats, they would be attacking the GOP as vociferously as they attack their own party. And yet they never do - and if you can provide links to your posts calling those posters "RW groupies" by virtue of their never having done so, I'd be fascinated to see them.
What it comes down to is this: It is the Snowden groupies, to borrow your phrase, that have ignored the inconsistencies in his stories, ignored the fact that he can't PRODUCE any facts to support his claims, and ignored the idea that if one is going to accuse a gov't agency of illegal activity they should be able to cite a single instance of said illegal activity, at the very least.
I trust you are on some super-duper-secret email list of Eddie's - so that when he finally remembers what illegal activity the NSA is engaged in, you can be one of the first to know.
Maybe someday he'll come up with proof that he could access Obama's emails, that the NSA can read my thoughts as I type them, that he can see my on-line purchases as I make them. But so far, nada. And if expecting proof of those allegations is "dissecting every little comment Snowden has made for total accuracy", then so be it. Without proof, his allegations are meaningless, and if he fears his statements "being dissected for accuracy", he might apply to FOX-News for a job - I understand they're very big on their statements not "being dissected for accuracy" either.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....your criticisms of Snowden are focused on what you claim he said he did/could do., with no analysis of the documents he has revealed.
Snowden claimed that he could access anyone's email, even the President's. That has never been proven.
Snowden claimed that the NSA could "read people's thoughts as they typed them". Again, never proven, not even remotely.
Snowden claimed that he could see anyone's on-line activities, such as purchasing products via the internet. Yet again, never been proven.
Snowden at first claimed that he hadn't gone through 'normal channels' to alert his superiors to what he perceived to be wrongdoing on the part of the NSA. And then a few months ago, he claimed that he HAD made his concerns known to his superiors via emails.
Do you have any criticisms of the surveillance state?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)No, I don't.
Do I have a problem with the collection of metadata? Nope, not at all.
Do I believe that the NSA is breaking the law as it currently stands? I haven't seen any evidence that they are. And neither has Snowden, because when directly asked what illegal activities the NSA is engaged in, he couldn't cite a single example.
Do I think the NSA, along with several other gov't agencies, should keep certain things secret and out of the public domain? Yes, I do. In fact, they are mandated to do so for reasons that should be obvious to all.
One last thing:
Do I think paranoia is running rampant on DU? Yes, absolutely.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)The people that parroted one official narrative after another, no matter how many no matter how many least untruthful answers those contained. First they insisted the NSA would NEVER spy on Americans. Then that was proven to be false. Then they insisted the NSA was only collecting non-personally identifying metadata. Then that was proven to be false. Then we moved on to the NSA only spies on Americans by getting a court order to spy on a person. Then that was shown to be false.
The people that constantly shift the goal posts for what will make the NSA being over the line every time it turns out the NSA crossed their line. Most people weren't questioning a damned thing. Instead they were arriving in droves to yell about boxes in garages and abandoned stripper girlfriends. As one falsehood after another fell to pieces, instead of acknowledging that they had been lied to, they immediately moved on to the next falsehood without so much as a pause for reflection and pretended none of the other claims had ever been made. As if no one else remembers four months of "It's just metadata no one can identify! They're not spying on you, hippies!" type posts.
(Note: I don't actually think these people were actively lying. I think most just believed the official line and were defending it accordingly. I think to some extent the same is true of Obama. I doubt he knew or even still knows how far they're going, but once you've defended it as a politician, you've painted yourself into a corner.)
The people I'd call security state fanatics would be a small number of the people that make arguments in defense of the NSA. They'd be the people that insist spook agencies should never be questioned because they keep us safe. The people that brought over the absurdly right wing phrase "Blame America First" or accuse people of sympathizing with terrorists. You know, the worst of the right wing memes Republicans used to defend expansion of the security state, MIC, and other awful policies against the dirty leftists during Bush, being proudly hauled into view on a Democratic message board for pretty much the same use. The number of things you can support by opposing a spook agency spying on Americans at will is breathtaking. Off the top of my head opposing the NSA has made me support pedophiles, child pornographers, drug traffickers, and sex traffickers. And terrorists just for good measure. For these folks, this isn't the only issue they're iffy about by a long shot.
So it isn't so much that some people are NSA groupies here as there are people that will defend absolutely anything our team does, no matter how bad an idea it is. If in the future we end up with a Republican president again, and the cyclical nature of politics suggests that eventually we will, all this is going to be handed to him on a golden platter, with no one left to oppose him because we made such a vocal effort at defending it when a Democrat was doing it. We need to get rid of this stuff now, while we still have a chance to get rid of it, because Republicans are sure as hell never going to give that much power up.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Let's start there. Can you point to anyone here who "arrived to yell about boxes in garages and abandoned stripper girlfriends"?
I believe someone recently posted an OP asking for examples of this being done - and the only examples of same were quotes from an article reciting comments made by Snowden's neighbours, not citing quotes from DU posters.
If you can come up with posts from DUers who offered "boxes in the garage and stripper girlfriends" as an argument against Snowden's credibility, I would be most curious to read them. Oh, and I do mean the "skeptical of Snowden" crowd - not the Snowden supporters who kept regurgitating those quotes and insisting that the skeptics were the ones promoting that meme.
"The people I'd call security state fanatics would be a small number of the people that make arguments in defense of the NSA. They'd be the people that insist spook agencies should never be questioned because they keep us safe."
Again, this black-and-white thinking is all pervasive. If one thinks Snowden is lying because he has not produced any facts to support his assertions, that is NOT defending the NSA - or anything else. It is simply pointing out the fact that Snowden has made allegations he has yet to prove.
If someone asserted that Sarah Palin is the daughter of a black sharecropper and an exotic dancer from Timbuktu, and someone questioned the veracity of that statement in the face of a total lack of evidence thereof, that does not make the questioner a Sarah Palin defender. It simply makes the interlocutor a defender of the truth, as opposed to a defender of the person being lied about.
Snowden has made accusations that the NSA has engaged in illegal activity. When asked to cite those instances of illegal activity, Snowden couldn't come up with a single example.
That being said, I will await your links to those who "arrived in droves to yell about boxes in garages and abandoned stripper girlfriends." Being as they "arrived in droves", it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with links to at least a few.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)This one is a one-stop shop of silly mudslinging.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022983957
Snowden abandoned his girlfriend. You know, like she's a child he left in the woods to be raised by wolves.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014700932
Snowden is too ugly for pole dancer, must have been assigned pole dancer as cover.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035121
It's harder to find them now because of all the people mocking folks that brought it up in the first place.
Edit: For more delicious irony, you object to "NSA apologists" or "NSA supporters", but use "Snowdenistas" downthread. So it isn't the mudslinging or name calling you object to. It's other people being able to call you names that rankles.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)is a link to a Politico story, and did not originate with a DUer.
The second link goes to a Telegraph article, not to an original post by a DUer.
The third post appears to have originated with a DUer. Kudos for finding it.
Given your contention that people were "arriving in droves to yell about boxes in garages and abandoned stripper girlfriends",, I'm having a hard time equating ONE poster with a DROVE.
"It's harder to find them now because of all the people mocking folks that brought it up in the first place."
No, it's harder to find them because the majority of people who "mocked those who brought it up in the first place" were mocking posts that never existed. If they did exist, you would have had no trouble finding them, and the people who "mocked" such posts, would have provided links to the posts they were "mocking".
The truth remains that Snowden's assertions that he could access Obama's emails, that he could "read people's thoughts as they posted", or that he could monitor people's on-line purchases, have never been proven. At all.
That doesn't make me an NSA defender nor an NSA groupie. It merely makes me skeptical of people who make sweeping allegations without an iota of proof to support those allegations.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... I have been participating in another Snowden thread and, yes indeedy - someone did raise the topic of the "pole dancing girlfriend". The person who raised it is a staunch Snowden supporter. No one else in the entire thread raised the topic.
The Snowden fans are always the ones who raise the "boxes in the garage" and "stripper girlfriend" topics, in a very transparent - and incredibly lame - attempt to imply that it is the Snowden doubters who are obsessed with same.
BTW, the third link you provided actually doesn't go to prove your point. The DUer there merely posted a pic of Snowden's GF, and commented that he thought she was too pretty to be attracted to Snowden - he said nothing about her occupation at all.
So that's three fails. Amazing that posts by people who "were arriving in droves to yell about boxes in garages and abandoned stripper girlfriends" can't be found. I wonder why that is - I suspect it's because such posts never happened.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)lielielielielielielielielielielielielielielielielielielielielielielielie...
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)No doubt there's a secret law that proves it.
(Is this really what we've become?)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
& Rec !!!
libodem
(19,288 posts)That's good.
George II
(67,782 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that the Snowdenistas choose to ignore - along with so much else.
Did Snowden himself not admit to "borrowing" co-workers' passwords in order to access things he didn't have the authority and/or clearance to view?
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Snowden said he had access. The NSA said he didn't. Snowden produced evidence.
No surprise to see you try to use a weak semantic argument to defend NSA.
Also no surprise you are not condemning the NSA's actions in these illegal data collection schemes--just trying to attack Snowden.
George II
(67,782 posts)
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Snowden's real crime is that he didn't SELL his insider knowledge, he gave it away for free.
General Alexander, well, he knows how you're SUPPOSED to play the game. Consulting gigs with fat old paychecks.
That's why so many people are pissed. There was a nice fat corrupt bunch of beltway bandits growing their surveillance industry nicely while the populace went on in blissful ignorance. Now they have to justify their crap, and it doesn't pass the smell test.
Not in the least.
George II
(67,782 posts)Pholus
(4,062 posts)The fourth amendment is not compatible with the BFEE's version of the NSA and it's desired access to our communications and personal information. Too bad we aren't doing anything useful about it, all while Cheney's toadies and contributors loot the treasury to do it.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... of the NSA's illegal actions. Even Snowden couldn't come up with a single example of illegal activity.
Do you know something he doesn't know?
Again there is that black-and-white thinking at play: if you don't believe Snowden's unsubstantiated stories, you are defending the NSA.
You should spend more time in the real world, where pointing out the holes in Snowden's version of events does not automatically mean one is an NSA defender.
Jesus Hussein Christ - this has never been an either/or argument. And those who insist it is are either too naive or too lacking in common sense to understand the difference.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)under George Bush, The Dim-Son. President Obama has made no moves to make any changes. Why wouldnt it be prudent to investigate the NSA/CIA cabal and find out? They work for us. Instead, we have people shouting "Hey look over there, Snowden's stories have holes." Without any oversight, why wouldnt we assume they are stepping over the line?
It isn't up to Snowden to prove anything. He and other whistle-blowers have cast enough doubt the now it's up to us to make sure the NSA/CIA cabal hasn't taken control of the country.
And you name calling is childish.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Absolutely. Anyone should feel free to make any accusations they wish, without any burden of proof whatsoever.
In fact, that's what FOX-News does all the time. Why should they, or anyone else, have to "prove anything"?
My name calling is childish? That's pretty rich coming from someone who calls other posters "oligarchs, authoritarians, corporatists, water-carriers for the 1%", et cetera, every time someone disagrees with your skewed view of things.
Have you ever read your own posts? I doubt it - because if you've had, you wouldn't be so quick to call the kettle black.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)There is enough evidence produced by Snowden, other whistle-blowers, Senators, and even Gen Clapper, to warrant further investigations. Are you against further investigations? Are you really saying that we shouldn't make sure that the all powerful NSA/CIA group isn't overstepping their bounds? Are you saying that we, as citizens, don't have an obligation to make sure that this all powerful spy organization isn't violating the Constitution? Isn't using their spy systems for uses other than intended? That they don't need any oversight? What about wanting oversight and transparency is "skewed"?
Isn't blindly following authoritarian leadership skewed?
Attacking Snowden and other whistle-blowers is clearly attacking the messengers and surprising behavior for a supposedly liberal DU poster.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)He did not raise any illegal activity taking place within the NSA. When asked point-blank by Brian Williams to cite anything illegal the NSA is engaged in, Snowden couldn't come up with a single thing.
As per usual, you defend Snowden by attacking anyone who questions his credibility, or points out the fact that he has made many serious allegations which he has yet to offer an iota of proof to support.
For almost a full year, Snowden claimed that he didn't raise his concerns with his superiors because he thought doing so would be pointless. Two months ago, he changed his story and now insists that he DID raise his concerns via emails. Was he lying then, or is he lying now?
As you said up thread: "It isn't up to Snowden to prove anything."
Isn't blindly following a person who has made serious allegations, and can't provide any proof to back up those allegations, a bit skewed?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)NSA/CIA organization overstepping their bounds, and is it a threat to our Democracy. That's very important. Maybe the single most important issue before us. If the NSA/CIA can control our government, then our Democracy is dead. But go ahead and lynch Snowden and see if you feel better. There will be another, and another. We will fight to be free in spite of those among us that want to blindly follow their authoritarian leaders. By the way, the NSA/CIA organization was formed under Bush. Why would you trust them?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... this site is now Black-&-White Underground.
If you point out the untruths in Snowden's statements, you hate him
If you express doubt that Warren can be elected POTUS, you hate her.
If you mention that some teachers are lousy educators, you hate all teachers.
By the same token:
If you opine that the vast majority of cops are good, decent people doing their jobs well, you're defending police brutality.
If you enjoy Woody Allen movies, you're a pedophile enabler.
If you open a door for a woman, you're a misogynist.
If you shave your legs and armpits, you're not a feminist.
If you flirt with a woman you find attractive, you're objectifying her.
If you support Obama, you're a mindless idol worshipper.
Black-&-White - no shades of gray. If you're not 100% on-board with one position, it means you are 100% on-board with the exact opposite position.
It is exactly that kind of thinking that reeks of "blindly following authoritarian leaders", those leaders being those on this site who keep laying down the law of what one is allowed to think or express in black-and-white terms, no exceptions.
In fact, I've seen you lay down the law yourself by telling posters that if they don't weigh-in on thread topics that YOU think are important, they are not really Democrats. You consistently call anyone who disagrees with you "authoritarians", "water-carriers for the 1%", etc. - and then you whine about people calling other people names when you're on the receiving end of that very behaviour.
"But go ahead and lynch Snowden and see if you feel better."
Goes directly to my point: If you point out Snowden's lies, his contradictions, or question his motives, you're "lynching" him. No in-between there - only black-and-white. You're either on-board 100% with everything the man has said and done, or you want to lynch him.
You should really try venturing out into the real world once in a while. It's a lot more colourful where people can express all kinds of things that go beyond the black-and-white thinking that has taken hold here.
George II
(67,782 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It seems to me that using terms like "Snowdenistas" is not conducive to having a decent discussion.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Made Legal, And Nobody Bothered To Check With The American Citizens.
From: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5138547
grasswire
(50,130 posts)
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... about the fact that you posted a link back to one of your own posts saying exactly the same thing you've said here?
I don't think you really want to know what I think about that.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and if he did, then why he took them...
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)The primary reason is that he knew he was going to expose the NSA, so he gathered EVERYTHING he could get his hands on in a short time frame. He could then sort through it later.
Or, he might have found evidence of illegal interaction between the military intelligence community and the domestic agencies.
Has the NSA claimed he did so? I am not aware of that. Are you trying to use innuendo to imply Snowden did it to sell secrets to foreign powers? The anti-Snowden crowd does a lot of that.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)So, innuendo is pretty much what they're left with.
George II
(67,782 posts)....He could then sort through it later".
So he was on a fishing expedition?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Snowden's statement on the documents he stole:
“I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest. There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn’t turn over, because harming people isn’t my goal. Transparency is.”
When a cache of Snowden’s documents wound up in the hands of Der Spiegel, they declined to publish some of them: “SPIEGEL has decided not to publish details it has seen about secret operations that could endanger the lives of NSA workers."
So much for Snowden's "careful evaluation".
And ironically enough, Mr. Smarter-Than-Everyone didn't bother to "get his hands on" the emails he now claims he sent to his superiors in which he raised concerns about the legality of NSA activities. Those would be the same emails he initially denied ever sending, because to do so would have been pointless.
It was, IMHO, a calculated move. Change your story as to having sent emails, then wait for the NSA to deny having received them - then accuse the NSA of deliberately withholding emails that were never sent.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they don't lie.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Both camps have been truthful when convenient, and less than truthful when the situation called for it..
