Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government The Courts News

Rep. Jane Harman Focus In Yet Another Warrantless Wiretap Scandal 312

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the irony-makes-head-asplode dept.
Many different sources are talking about the latest scandal surrounding the warrantless wiretapping program. Incriminating evidence against California rep. Jane Harman was apparently captured some time ago on a legal NSA wiretap. However, Attorney General Gonzales supposedly intervened to drop the case against her because (and this is where the irony meter explodes) Bush officials wanted her to be able to publicly defend the warrantless wiretap program. "Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as 'the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee' to repeatedly praise the NSA program as 'essential to US national security' and 'both necessary and legal.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rep. Jane Harman Focus In Yet Another Warrantless Wiretap Scandal

Comments Filter:
  • by nicolas.kassis (875270) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:13PM (#27648345)
    We should boycott all forms of communications!
  • Treason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dan667 (564390) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:14PM (#27648365)
    Rep. Harman should be investigated for treason. AIPAC should be investigated for treason.
    • Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Darundal (891860) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:21PM (#27648511) Journal
      So should those who knowingly let them get away with it.
    • Re:Treason (Score:5, Informative)

      by DrLang21 (900992) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:34PM (#27648735)
      How exactly does this qualify as treason under the US Constitution?
      From the US Constitution Article III Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
      • beat me to it (Score:5, Informative)

        by Shakrai (717556) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:40PM (#27648831) Journal

        Thank you. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing people drop the 'T' word without any idea of what it actually means. It's this kind of stupidity that makes me think the Framers were correct to define Treason within the Constitution so it couldn't be used for political purposes.....

        • Re:beat me to it (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Compholio (770966) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:58PM (#27649091)

          Thank you. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing people drop the 'T' word without any idea of what it actually means. It's this kind of stupidity that makes me think the Framers were correct to define Treason within the Constitution so it couldn't be used for political purposes.....

          Maybe some people consider those that threaten our liberties to be our enemies... Seems reasonable to me.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by swillden (191260)

            Maybe some people consider those that threaten our liberties to be our enemies...

            So... most federal and many state agencies are treasonous?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by PhxBlue (562201)

            Maybe some people consider those that threaten our liberties to be our enemies...

            In which case the American people themselves are guilty of "treason." Seriously, could the government have gotten away with things like warrantless wiretapping without the public's silence and implicit consent?

        • Re:beat me to it (Score:5, Interesting)

          by sjames (1099) on Monday April 20, 2009 @03:11PM (#27651573) Homepage

          If the terrorists wish to disrupt our society, do something nasty towards that end, and the politicians then disrupt things far more than the terrorists in response, they have in that sense given aid to an enemy of the United States.

          Given that the Constitution is the law of the land and the foundation of the federal government's right to exist at all, someone who deliberately attempts to subvert it becomes an enemy of the United States. Note that that in no way would apply to someone who attempts to follow the appropriate and well defined procedures to alter the Constitution.

      • Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bobdehnhardt (18286) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:42PM (#27648875)

        You're spot on target. This wasn't treason, it was standard political quid pro quo. Admittedly, it's sometimes hard to tell the two apart....

        Dems may call it treason because she turned her back on the party line. But that's personal. IANAL, but to me, this looks like obstruction, maybe tampering with evidence. Not treason.

        • by DrLang21 (900992)
          I admit, this probably gets dangerously close to a treasonous act. There's just one problem though, Isreal is officially our ally, not enemy.
        • Re:Treason (Score:5, Informative)

          by rpillala (583965) on Monday April 20, 2009 @01:20PM (#27649523)

          I don't remember very many prominent Democrats opposing the NSA's illegal spying program. In fact many prominent Democrats were in favor. I remember a lengthy and uncompromising campaign against these kind of things by Chris Dodd (D-CT), but I also remember that Harry Reid (D-NV) decided to ignore the hold that Dodd placed on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Ignoring holds placed by Senators is not generally done. And then a lot of Democrats voted to end debate on the amendments to the act. I think you're giving the Democratic party too much credit for opposing the lawlessness of the Bush administration. They don't oppose lawlessness per se.

        • Re:Treason (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jollyreaper (513215) on Monday April 20, 2009 @01:34PM (#27649773)

          You're spot on target. This wasn't treason, it was standard political quid pro quo. Admittedly, it's sometimes hard to tell the two apart....

          Dems may call it treason because she turned her back on the party line. But that's personal. IANAL, but to me, this looks like obstruction, maybe tampering with evidence. Not treason.

          Are you sure about that? Doing AIPAC's bidding directly puts the US in conflict with the people we get a large portion of our oil from. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the US is supposed to be the welfare provider for the entire world. I find it curious that we'll have conservatives who rail against welfare to American citizens but are more than happy to send the money overseas. I know that this is a liberal who just got caught here but the liberal platform isn't anti-welfare which is what makes the conservative stance hypocritical. What part of giving handouts to Israel serves America's interests? This does nothing to enhance America's security. If we are talking about humanitarian concerns, giving no-strings-attached aid to Israel just makes it more certain the Palestinians will take it in the shorts.

          This scandal is going to get the neo-nazis out in droves hooting and hollering about the evil joo's controlling the gubmint. Ignore them. I'm pissed about AIPAC but I'd be just as pissed if we had the Irish PAC leading the government around by the nose and demanding concessions to Ireland and asking us to take sides in the Troubles.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by deKernel (65640)

            I find it curious that we'll have conservatives who rail against welfare to American citizens but are more than happy to send the money overseas.

            I am sorry, but I really take offense to this comment. I am a conservative and all of my family and friends are conservative, and none of us are against welfare. We all believe that safety nets are needed because sometimes bad things do happen to people. If I had to guess, you are taking a few quotes from some fringe conservatives and sweeping the rest under the same brush.

            What we don't like is the current welfare system that does not encourage people to get off the welfare system. The current system is bro

      • Re:Treason (Score:4, Informative)

        by Dan667 (564390) on Monday April 20, 2009 @01:05PM (#27649237)
        Jane Harman was caught sheltering spys. That is treason.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20, 2009 @02:23PM (#27650641)

        Since when has false flag specialist Israel really been the US ally, as opposed to treating the US as her bitch, because of traitors like this cretin in the article and other traitors in big business, big media, and big finance and big government? They sure as hell ARE traitors. Just because they claim they aren't doesn't make it so once you look at the real data.

            Why the hell should we be supporting a racist apartheid nation? I never supported racist south africa, and nor do I support Israel, they have been a plague and have put the world at peril for nuclear confrontation for decades now, all so that some European settlers can claim land that isn't theirs. If they had a beef with Germany over their particular holocaust, which is just ONE OF MANY that happened during the war, why the hell didn't we demand Germany give up some territory for some new zionist nation? The Germans are the biggest hypocrites out there now about this. Their old biblical claim to "greater zion" is pure hogwash, freaking fantasy land and I can't believe anyone on this forum falls for it.

          Here's just a few references to get you started on some sorely neglected education that you need about those false "allies" who are really the biggest threat to the security of the US, USS Liberty attack [gtr5.com]-this is called levying war, get it? and don't believe the official dual nation coverup story, listen to the actual survivors and dudes who lived through it. And go ahead and google "9-11, dancing Israelis"-for more levying war, and "khazars" for a little more in depth historical background of what lying toads they are. Shrewd yes, technologically capable, yes, smart yes, but also lying sneaky deceitful skunks and jerks.

        People who put the interests of some other nation over their own ARE traitors, fullstop. If they claim to be US citizens but work for another nation-traitors. That includes Israel-firsters, including those loony brainwashed flat earth snake handling Xians who are dreaming of Armageddon and some huge conflagration to bring about the Rapture, and just the normal economic traitors, then those jerk off big businessmen who are China-firsters, and so on.

        Traitors. You can't have it both ways, either loyal to your own nation first, or you are a traitor and a liar and a hypocrite.

        Israel, history of false flag operations [google.com]

        • Ouch (Score:3, Insightful)

          by msimm (580077)
          Politicians blow, they lie for career, power, money and we let them get away with it. But calling Israelis 'lying sneaky deceitful skunks and jerks' is kind of general. There are probably some people there that arent.
    • by pilgrim23 (716938)
      Treason Never Prospers What's the reason? Why if it Prospers None Dare Call It Treason! -Sir John Harrington
    • Re:Treason (Score:5, Informative)

      by DJRumpy (1345787) on Monday April 20, 2009 @01:28PM (#27649669)
      Here's an excellent in-depth article on who did who..er..who did what.

      http://static.cqpolitics.com/harman-3098436-page1.html [cqpolitics.com]
  • by nicolas.kassis (875270) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:15PM (#27648375)
    I mean, they lost a few years of emails. Getting rid of some inconvenient wiretap can't be far harder.
    • Getting rid of some inconvenient wiretap can't be far harder.

      Might as well get rid of the wiretapper, while they're at it.

      And the person who was tapped, too.

      Problem solved.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:18PM (#27648433)

    If nothing else, this Jane Harmon scandal is going to continue to undermine the USA's credibility as an "impartial" mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Regardless of what Jane Harmon may have done, it's rather shocking that AIPAC has enough pull in congress to be able to hold out committee chairmanships as bribes.

    • it's rather shocking that AIPAC has enough pull in congress to be able to hold out committee chairmanships as bribes.

      Only to those of you recently clued in on Israel's stranglehold over US politics.
    • by JoshuaZ (1134087) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:25PM (#27648587) Homepage
      Well, she didn't get the chairmanship. See http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/must_read_5.php [talkingpointsmemo.com] But yes, this doesn't look good at all. It looks from the circumstances like Bush and Gonzales more or less bought her support by promising not to prosecute. It really says something about how appalling Gonzalez was that he not only made Ashcroft look sane but now even out of office he is continuing to make Ashcroft look better just by comparison.
      • by tsotha (720379)

        It looks from the circumstances like Bush and Gonzales more or less bought her support by promising not to prosecute. It really says something about how appalling Gonzalez was that he not only made Ashcroft look sane but now even out of office he is continuing to make Ashcroft look better just by comparison.

        For all his quirks (like early-morning prayer sessions and covering up statues), Ashcroft was one of the better AGs we've had in recent years. Gonzo was more on the other side of of the scale. But ci

        • by Tiger4 (840741) on Monday April 20, 2009 @02:01PM (#27650237)

          The only one I can think of off the top of my head is "Cold Cash" Jefferson from New Orleans.

          I object to this scurrilous and unfounded attack on the good name of a fine representative from a great city and a great state. They called him William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by tsotha (720379)
            Didn't you guys reelect him after they found $10,000 in his freezer. Jeez.
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Tiger4 (840741)

              That was a one time aberration and should not reflect on his character as a whole. The money was in the freezer only because the cupboard was already stuffed full, and there was no time to get to the storage container or make a flight to Grand Cayman.

        • by Savantissimo (893682) on Monday April 20, 2009 @03:06PM (#27651485) Journal

          Bush was, in general, very reluctant to prosecute Democratic politicians because he was afraid people would assume the prosecutions were partisan in nature.

          I don't think he gave a shit whether people thought he was being partisan - his administration's conduct certainly shows that they did pretty much whatever they wanted. Anyway, only Democrats can be called partisan, didn't you get the memo?

          No, as I have said for several years, the only reasonable explanation for the total surrender of the Democrats in Congress to Bush's policies is that they were and are being blackmailed. Turning reality around and asking why Bush was "reluctant to prosecute Democratic politicians" is the kind of mindfuck that would make Karl Rove proud. The Democrats weren't being set up for selective prosecution only because they were being sufficiently grovelingly servile to their spying, blackmailing controllers.

  • Of course this sort of thing goes on all the time.

    But there's a less sinister explanation for why Gonzalez didn't prosecute - the wiretap capturing Harman's conversation was illegal. Can't prosecute someone with an illegal wiretap.

    Irony alert on many levels.

    • by spun (1352) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `yranoituloverevol'> on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:25PM (#27648593) Journal

      The point is that this was NOT illegal. Agents were investigating foreign operatives using warrentless wiretapping. They caught the foreign operatives bribing a congresswoman. The Bush administration declined to press charges because said congresswoman supported warrantless wiretapping.

      • It was illegal. I don't like their chances of having used that wiretap in court. They can certainly use illegal wiretaps to gather intelligence. Legally actionable material? Doubtful.

        • by spun (1352) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `yranoituloverevol'> on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:33PM (#27648727) Journal

          Who says it was illegal? We may WISH it were illegal, we may get it declared illegal, it may in fact be unconstitutional, but the fact is, the agents performed what was at the time a LEGAL warrantless wiretap against foreign agents and happened to catch them bribing a congresswoman. They tapped FOREIGN AGENTS IN ISRAEL. There is no US law against tapping foreign phone lines.

          • They tapped FOREIGN AGENTS IN ISRAEL. There is no US law against tapping foreign phone lines.

            The article doesn't say very clearly where the wiretapped subjects were, but there's this:

            Finally, the CQ story says that Harman's conversation was recorded as part of "a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington."

            From that it sounds like the tapping was entirely domestic, in terms of where the phone lines were located.

            • by spun (1352)

              Good point, but wherever the foreign agents were located, wherever they were tapped, our guys got a legal warrant from the FISA court to tap them. I personally think FISA is unconstitutional, but it is, for now, legal.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by colinnwn (677715)
            Aside from the fact the source says the Harman tap was from the FISA law, and not Bush's non-law.

            There have been many reasonable accusations for why the Bush warrantless wiretapping was illegal (for gathering any amount of intelligence against American citizens). You can't make a bare assertion (or implication) that it was legal because a determination of supposed legality was made by a branch of the government. The Executive branch likely wasn't duly authorized to endorse such activities by fiat.

            If a
        • by sampson7 (536545) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:41PM (#27648859)
          There is nothing wrong with wiretapping so long as the wiretap is approved by the judicial branch of government. In this case, the NSA sought and received a warrant from the US Foreign Intelligence Survailence Court ("FISA"). Once the executive branch (the NSA in this case) has a warrant, they are legally entitled to record the conversations.

          In this case, the underlying article reports that: "What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington." Key words are "court-approved."

          The Fourth Amendment states that:

          The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

          Once the executive branch has convinced a judge that probably cause exists, and the judge has issued the warrant, there is nothing preventing the executive branch from using that information in court.

          Now there is a real question as to whether wire tapping a member of congress (who herself was not under investigation) is a good idea, but that's not really the issue. I'm actually somewhat sad to hear about this as Jane Harmon is/was a very competent and thoughtful member of congress -- particularly on port security issues.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by interkin3tic (1469267)

            There is nothing legally wrong with wiretapping so long as the wiretap is approved by the judicial branch of government.

            Fixed that for you. A seal of approval by the government doesn't change whether something is morally wrong or right.

        • While I've never agreed with the legal theories that allow most wiretapping, the courts have, and this wiretap was approved by a court.

          However, dropping prosecution in return for the Congresscritter actively supporting their political agenda strikes me as somewhere on the spectrum between extortion and at least partisan favoritism.

      • retroactive FISA (Score:5, Informative)

        by kmahan (80459) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:34PM (#27648737)

        As I understand it they went to FISA to get a retroactive warrant. A nice little provision of the law.

      • by dyfet (154716) on Monday April 20, 2009 @01:17PM (#27649451) Homepage

        Basically it is potentially a government sanctioned blackmail scenario. A kind of quid-pro-quo, "you support our legislation and we will not release what we know about you"...please explain how it is not illegal?

    • by sweatyboatman (457800) <sweatyboatman&hotmail,com> on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:33PM (#27648723) Homepage Journal

      RTFS ...

      evidence against California rep Jane Harman was apparently captured some time ago on a legal NSA wiretap

      LEGAL, as in, they used the existing FISA law passed by Congress in 1978. Not the Bush administration's made-up law.

    • the wiretap capturing Harman's conversation was illegal.

      But Roberto and Yoo said it was legal. Bush maintained it was legal. Either it's legal or not. So instead of admitting they're wiretapping Americans, so much better to just blackmail the ones you need something from.

      American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

      So now we know the Israelis are lobbying for favors, that's nothing new. What's news to me is how effective they are. They're ab

  • Is it that Bush blackmailed a Congressman to do his political bidding? As much as I find it detestable, district attorneys do this all the time.

  • by Jaysyn (203771)

    We got that bitch over a barrel, yo! She gonna do *everything* we tell her ass to do!

  • by amiga3D (567632) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:21PM (#27648493)
    This is why the warrantless wiretap program should be done away with. When you operate in secret the things found will be used to blackmail. Instead of being used to further the goals of justice it's used to further the goals of those in power.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by elrous0 (869638) *
      That's the first thing that hit me when I saw this article: BLACKMAIL in bold letters. I always suspected that at least a handfull of neocons (Chenney, Wolfowitz, Gonzales and that ilk) were using the warrantless wiretap program from political ends (to get dirt on Democracts and other opposition leaders). This seems to be pretty strong evidence that it went on in at least one case. Which leads, of course, to the next question, how many MORE Jane Harman's are there out there (that the Bush-era NSA spied on a
  • by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:21PM (#27648501) Journal

    Both parties working together to do shitty stuff. Yay.

  • by RobertB-DC (622190) * on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:22PM (#27648523) Homepage Journal

    The "irony-makes-head-asplode dept." is funny, but inaccurate.

    Irony is when something is the opposite of what you would expect.

    Hypocrisy, lies, and hardball intimidation tactics are *exactly* what we would expect from proponents of warrantless wiretapping.

    This situation contains no irony. Just corruption. We might say, though, that "Ironically, the new administration was elected in hopes of restoring honor to the Justice Department."

    • Irony: A US representative was captured on an illegal wiretap doing illegal things. She then added her support to illegal wiretapping. She couldn't have been prosecuted anyway because the wiretap on her was probably illegal.

      If you don't see Irony here, you're not trying hard enough.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by amiga3D (567632)
        actually she was caught on a legal wiretap and should have been prosecuted but was instead blackmailed into supporting illegal wiretapping. If this wiretap had been illegal we'd most likely never have heard about it.
        • I'm not sure either way. Since it was performed by the NSA, I assumed it was done without a court order. Has any government collected wiretapping data been used in a US court which was not collected via a court order?

      • by berbo (671598) on Monday April 20, 2009 @01:26PM (#27649635)
        Actually, according to the Greenwald column, the Harman/AIPAC wiretap wasn't illegal - it was a court-approved wiretap on a foreigner.

        This makes it even more ironic - the Bush administration declined to prosecute what was likely a serious crime, based on a legal wiretap - so that they could more effectively pursue illegal wiretaps.

  • by Skyshadow (508) * on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:23PM (#27648527) Homepage
    Using illegally gathered information to effectively blackmail politicians? Ah, that takes me back to the good 'ol days -- J Edgar would be proud.

    I wonder how well Robert Mueller pulls off a sun dress...
  • Not warrantless. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wiredog (43288) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:30PM (#27648681) Journal

    DoJ had a warrant, apparently it was part of the AIPAC investigation.

    No, the fishy part is that the Bush admin apparently blackmailed her into supporting the warrantless program.

    Also, you have the Executive branch doing that ot a member of the Legislative.

    This could get really interesting...

  • by JoshuaZ (1134087) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:34PM (#27648733) Homepage
    The TPM piece on this http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/must_read_5.php [talkingpointsmemo.com] mentions incidentally that the position in question had almost gone to Alcee Hastings but didn't because Hastings had earlier been removed "from a federal judgeship over bribery allegations." So Harman only had a chance at the position because the other major contender was corrupt. You've got to love the politicians.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    You can bet it would have been pointed out in the title of the summary and 10 more times in the summary.

  • by Culture20 (968837)
    How hard is it to put the D after her name? We're not all from California, you know. I had to spend 40 seconds googling it, and another couple minutes typing this. That's time I'll never get back. I might see my potential future children for a few less minutes now (or even worse, they might never be born!). Won't someone PLEASE think of the children and add party affiliation tags after politician names so I'll know ahead of time whether I should hate them or love them!?!

    There, somebody posted the usu
    • by phantomfive (622387) on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:59PM (#27649117) Journal

      How hard is it to put the D after her name?

      Why would you want to do that? You'll just perpetuate the myth that it actually matters.

      • Actually, the Parent has a point. Whenever a (R) does something, the press makes it VERY clear, often repeating party affiliation several times within the article. And when it is a (D), they may never actually mention it.

        Pay attention to how politicians are labeled in news articles and you'll see this trend. Good (D), Bad (R). No bad (D), no good (R).

        And I'm not even an (R), and I can see the bias.

        • by grassy_knoll (412409) on Monday April 20, 2009 @01:33PM (#27649757) Homepage

          Yes, the press makes party affiliation very clear... perhaps in a way they don't mean to.

          When an (R) does something wrong as you note you cant(R) see(R) their(R) name(R) in(R) print(R) without(R) that(R) (R) right after their name.

          On the other hand, when a politician has done something wrong and no party affiliation is mentioned they're a (D), never an (R) or an (I).

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by jgtg32a (1173373)
      "40 seconds"

      your google-fu is weak old man it too me 20 and I'm on a 28.8 modem.
    • by rm999 (775449)

      As others point out, you should learn how to read the summary if you want to complain.

      Mods, do your job correctly.

  • by speedtux (1307149) on Monday April 20, 2009 @01:02PM (#27649179)

    The reason we don't want to have warrantless wiretapping is not for people like you and me; it's for this: if the government can listen in on the opposition, it can blackmail them to fall in line politically. So, this case isn't "ironic", it's what you expect to happen when warrantless wiretaps are tolerated, and it's a really bad sign.

    • by dave562 (969951)
      What you've framed as a negative consiquence, I see a positive result. If enough blackmailing goes back and forth between the parties when the reigns of power shift every couple of years, sooner or later one of two things are going to happen. In an ideal world, people would realize that they are going to be held accountable eventually and that would result in fewer corrupt, blackmailable people in positions of power. We all know that won't happen. The second effect that could happen is that those in pow
  • One person blackmails another, who blackmails another, who blackmails another, and so on and so forth...

  • I was under the impression that it was AIPAC that was being tapped and that the tap was the result of a federal investigation, in which case there was a warrant.
  • Hey, I called it (Score:3, Informative)

    by HongPong (226840) <hongpong@NosPaM.hongpong.com> on Tuesday April 21, 2009 @12:13AM (#27656427) Homepage

    I am rather pleased with myself for correctly parsing this story in 2006 [hongpong.com]. It was clear to some at the time what was really going on.

    "In sum total: The FBI has the evidence already. The shape of spy scandals to get exposed depends on who runs the Intelligence committees, and Reyes seems like the only good choice" etc.

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.

Working...