CIA Accused: Sen. Feinstein Sees Torture Probe Meddling 187
A reader writes with this news from the Washington Post: "In an extraordinary public accusation, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee declared on Tuesday that the CIA interfered with and then tried to intimidate a congressional investigation into the agency's possible use of torture in terror probes during the Bush administration. The CIA clandestinely removed documents and searched a computer network set up for lawmakers, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein in a long and biting speech on the Senate floor. In an escalating dispute with an agency she has long supported, she said the CIA may well have violated criminal laws and the U.S. Constitution."
I smell a dupe (Score:5, Funny)
And I'm not referring to the people who keep voting for Feinstein, either.
It's the *Pot & Kettle Show* (Score:5, Insightful)
They are of the same kind, not dupes.
On one side we got scumbags.
On the other side we got assholes.
In other words, it's a showdown between the scumbags and the assholes.
Assholes accusing scumbags of torturing people, but in the meantime it was the assholes who defended the scumbags when they violated the Constitutions, ignoring the Bill of Rights, invading the privacy of Hundreds of Millions of the American Citizens, and billions more people outside of America.
Re:It's the *Pot & Kettle Show* (Score:5, Insightful)
Assholes accusing scumbags of torturing people, but in the meantime it was the assholes who defended the scumbags when they violated the Constitutions, ignoring the Bill of Rights, invading the privacy of Hundreds of Millions of the American Citizens, and billions more people outside of America.
No, I think it is far simpler than that.
We have a bunch of people who think anything goes "for the good of the country" (in the name of War on [*Something*]), until the second it affects them directly. Then, they suddenly remember laws/Constitution/human rights/etc.
This is not new, for example Video Privacy Protection Act [wikipedia.org].
Re:It's the *Pot & Kettle Show* (Score:5, Interesting)
Except it's not "for the good of the country", that's just the rhetorical propaganda used constantly. It is usually for the good of themselves, followed by their kind. Plenty of documentation exists in this regard, such as passing laws contrary to their election platform to generate campaign contributions. Worse in my opinion is using tax money to set up and run fund raisers, like Obama has done on every single trip he has ever taken to California where he does nothing else.
It's hard for people to see the rhetoric as propaganda since it's repeated all the time. I know many people that are happy to see Obama come to the SF Bay area 4 times a year to set up 20K plus a plate dinners, because they think he's working on his 1 day junkets. Why? Because the TV media refuses to discuss it or tell people what he's really doing for the most part. Our "Talk" radio stations discuss it but, well, it's talk radio and has a select audience.
Anyway, I don't think you are necessarily wrong but neither was the person you responded to. Pretty much, everything these people do is for self benefit and self preservation. They will use any sales pitch that works toward that end and they will continue until people wise up. I believe people are catching on to whats happening.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty clear that many in the ruling elites redefine terms in ways that the general public doesn't understand. That to people like Feinstein "the country" in the line "for the good of the country" means the ruling elite not the general public. Which is a big part of why she can say having the NSA spy on everyone all the time is "for the good of the country" while at the same time going ape shit over the spying impacting herself and the other members of the elite is a catastrophe. The worst part about
Re:It's The Fucking Ironic Show (Score:3)
Feinstein pretty much tops both my lists of un-indicted war criminals, and the enemies of the people.
The watch-word is stability, BTW.
Re: (Score:2)
using tax money to set up and run fund raisers, like Obama has done on every single trip he has ever taken to California where he does nothing else.
In all fairness, this has been SOP since at least Reagan's term in office (probably earlier as well, but I wasn't really aware of politics before then). Shrubby was particularly bad about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was no such implication, the generalizations toward all politicians is very complete in the first paragraph. Obama is particularly mentioned because in the last 2 years he has done no other business in California except to attend fund raisers. No town hall meetings, no speeches, just money grubbing. Since I live near Moffet Field we get the joy of seeing his every visit to that end and thumbing his nose at us regular citizens. If Bush was the acting President and was doing the same thing I would u
Pot and Kettle Show (Score:5, Insightful)
The Guardian:
Once you have told operatives to take their gloves off and fight dirty on the road they don't just start playing by Queensbury rules at home.
Those openly called on to flout international law in the interests of a higher good do not then suddenly submit that goal to domestic law once they've gone through customs. Once the state has deliberately created space for power to be exercised without accountability those who occupy that space will protect it against enemies domestic and foreign. When your war is global and unending it inevitably comes home and keeps going. The monster the US has unleashed on the rest of the world is steadily devouring its own.
Re: (Score:2)
Good story, but it assumes a competent CIA.
Re: (Score:2)
And no real oversight for anyone to actually call you on your incompetence.
Re: Pot and Kettle Show (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Eh it's a little more complicated than that. The autobiography of John Rizzo (General Counsel, CIA) after he retired basically states that the CIA made a tactical decision after Iran Contra to stop getting involved in stuff. Then Sep-11 happened.
As the CIA had literally no other intel than a couple of hard nosed al queda birds, it decided that it needed to torture people to save lives.
Funny thing is it probably did save lives. But the ends do not always justify the means. And really it shows just how th
Re: (Score:2)
Iran Contra is a good example of what is the problem with the CIA. They believe they are a covert military force and diplomatic wing of government, and NOT an intelligence gathering service. Because of this, after Iran Contra, they just pulled out of everything including the basics of intelligence gathering that would generate actionable intelligence.
The vietnam war murky start was due to it growing out of CIA lead military actions. In many ways a more up front decision decision in government about if there
Re: (Score:2)
Did you sleep through the 1980s and 90s or were you born yesterday?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does he expect us to be that naive?
It's like saying "Yes officer, I've never committed any crimes apart from those that made the front page for a month - ignore all the ones I got caught on that were only in the news for a week"
Re: (Score:3)
That was a fantastic book, and one of his assertions that should really be discussed is how the current administration found the "enhanced interrogation" program so repugnant, yet has no problem blowing up people with drones whether non-targets are hit with the missile or not.
Yeah, "walling" someone is far worse than collapsing a building on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, there seems to be no end to this ass-hole plugging up ass-hole business...
And you wonder why Washington opposed a partisan system of government.
Re: (Score:2)
On one side we got scumbags.
On the other side we got assholes.
It is not that simple. There are also people like Feinstein that are both scumbags and assholes. She combines the worst of the left (massive debt-funded, job-killing entitlements) with the worst of the right (sanctimonious moral authoritarianism). I have never heard of a "big government" program that she doesn't support. No one was a bigger apologist for the NSA's intrusion in the privacy of mere peasants. But as soon as they violate the privacy of the political royalty, she is outraged. As a Californ
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's not like anyone has posted this story to Slashdot today [slashdot.org].
Re:I smell a dupe (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't a dupe, it's an escalation of the same story that happened after the original was already posted.
Rather like how they broke news of TEPCO's reactors as a separate story from the tsunami.
Re: (Score:3)
I hate to encourage this sort of thing, but I do enjoy the difference between night crowd and day crowd.
As we have seen posted here, the first replies and moderation will influence later readers' opinions on who is an idiot. This takes very similar replies into quite a different discussion. Statistics would say that opinions would be predictable, but pure chance on who happens to moderate and post make all the difference.
Speaking of beta, it might be worth posting new stories at the bottom, so that more peo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a paraphraseof Joe Stalin's “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”. It's a good quote, but it raises the question, is that true of governments in general, at all times, or only when the government is a dictatorship like his was. As you've given it, you could mean either a warning people should heed and can maybe still do something about, or an exercise in sophomore pessimism that says we should all do nothing at all. It's easy to sound wise by saying
Re: (Score:2)
That's a paraphraseof Joe Stalin's “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”
Except that the election results matched what the polls predicted in fifty out of fifty states [mashable.com]. So this conspiracy theory requires the participation of not just the vote counters, but also the pollsters, journalists, and even Randall Monroe [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Turf war (food fight!) (Score:5, Insightful)
The NSA hates the CIA
Re: (Score:2)
Korea was a another few years re learning basic interception and plotting (ie having to be helped by the GCHQ/UK).
Near the end of Vietnam some real amazing efforts in interception, understanding and plotting Soviet tech in Asia seemed to finally be ready.
Most of the NSA efforts seem to be around sell
Re: (Score:3)
The NSA hates the CIA
Well yeah, in the first season. But Sarah and John eventually get along.
it's a dupe. (Score:3, Informative)
CIA hiding torture of Americans....
CIA operating all over American soil. The surveillance game allows them to control Senators, Congressman, citizens, police, and others alike, although I personally believe the Senators and police are in on it.
NSA is in on it.
Details on CIA/NSA surveillance abuses beyond Snowden, including space and satellite capability: http://www.oregonstatehospital... [oregonstatehospital.net]
Re:it's a dupe. (Score:4, Funny)
Forget the CIA and NSA, if you want to see tyranny, nothing beats homeowners' associations.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. My parents accidentally missed an HOA payment and then they got extraordinarily renditioned and water boarded.
They then complained loudly and then had to serve a few years at a prison camp.
Oh wait, HOAs don't do that. Evil? Sure. Worse than TLA agencies? No.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait.. You consider it tyranny when the wealthier of us are asked to contribute toward the healthcare of some of the poorest, and yet you have no problem begging for alms for your student debt?
Basically you appear to be arguing that democracy is the worst kind of tyranny. I think you might direct your gaze across your home's property lines, maybe even (eek!) to places where the meaning of tyranny is actually known and felt. Hint: if a bill passes it is the law -- you are not subject to only those laws which
Re:it's a dupe. (Score:5, Informative)
Conservatives like to often bring up that we are a republican, not a democracy. Part of the reason is they never met a poly sci class they could pass, but the other reason i'm sure is they somehow want to equate the name of their party, "republican," as somehow innately better because it's named after what our founders called our form of government. They also like to point out that our founders, in various writings, explicitly talk about the negatives of "democracy," and did not want one in this country. This is where the lack of being able to understand the basics of government seem to drag them into intentional ignorance.
The only form of "democracy" around when our founding fathers set up the Constitution was what we now call "direct democracy." It's basically what Switzerland has, where everyone gets to vote on whether people, or smaller groups of people, have the same rights as everyone else.... which was a bad thing from our founding fathers viewpoint; they called this the "tyranny of the majority," because after a vote of all the people, there were no safeguards for any minorities rights. This "tyranny of the majority," it should be noted, is exactly what conservatives try to invoke when the ask to put same-sex marriage up for a vote so the voters can decide. THAT is tyranny.
Because of the way the world of politics and government has evolved, there are multiple types of democracy now. One of those types is a "representative democracy," which is what we have. It is the same thing as a "constitutional republic." We vote for representatives, who then are stewards of the country until they're out of office. They in turn vote for the various laws, rules, and regulations to govern our country. BECAUSE they pass a law you don't like, doesn't mean jack shit. If it passes constitutional muster (which the ACA HAS), it is not "tyranny of the majority," it is simply a law YOU don't agree with.
Now... my advice to you is, buy that dictionary, and go on back to high school and learn something.
Re: (Score:2)
The only form of "democracy" around when our founding fathers set up the Constitution was what we now call "direct democracy."
Yes, and that's the only kind of democracy we have now.
Because of the way the world of politics and government has evolved, there are multiple types of democracy now. One of those types is a "representative democracy," which is what we have. It is the same thing as a "constitutional republic.
But those two things are not the same thing at all. A democracy is "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents" and that's not how our government works. First, we don't elect the presidental electors, so just get that fucking idea out of your head right now. They are simply selected. Second, vote fraud is rampant, and The People never voted to elect GWB. Not once. The
Re: (Score:2)
(inane, clueless trashing of conservatives removed)
If it passes constitutional muster (which the ACA HAS), it is not "tyranny of the majority," it is simply a law YOU don't agree with.
Actually, some parts of it have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Barely. But it's not a tyranny of the majority because the majority of the people in this country are against it. One party pushed it through and now they're delaying parts of it to help stave off losing a lot of elections later this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I voted for all of them. Twice.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone will instantly catch that things like changing the shape of your garden or planting a rose bush counts as an 'improvement' and can result in hundreds of dollars in fines.
(Note: the roses I was fined for did not in any way approach the property of my neighbors or interfere with the use of the street or sidewalk, and the only reason I was not fined for enlarging my garden as well was because the board did not bother to read the rules, and by ignoring my initial request, they automatically granted
Re: (Score:3)
power (Score:5, Interesting)
We will see who is more power, Congress or the CIA. The answer will be the CIA.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been plenty of times before that congress has had to punish agencies that have gone too far. See: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
I fail to see how this time will be any different.
If you REALLY manage to piss-off Congress, you don't get ANY more money. NONE. Three-letter agencies with no money don't have power for long.
Re: (Score:3)
That's assuming those 3 letter agencies don't have pictures of every single congressman on the hill in bed with every prostitute in Singapore. Given the assets of the NSA/CIA how long would it take you to invent blackmail on any particular congressman? I'm pretty sure I'd be done in about 10min.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blackmail is a gun you can only shoot once... Plenty of politicians have survived bigger scandals.
And don't forget the public is savvy enough about digital image manipulation that the evidence could be put into question long enough to get everyone through to the next budget vote, where all the three letter agencies get axed. Besides, a scandal only means no reelection... If you're obstant enough, you still finish out your term, and get to keep making laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been paying attention?
You can't get elected, unless they have some dirt on you. They don't have to invent dirt on any politician.
It wan't the CIA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having LBJ as your vice president was very brave, foolish perhaps.
Also why Hillary isn't VP. Obama is not stupid.
How fitting... (Score:4, Insightful)
...for Feinstien, of all people, to get in a hissy about somebody breaking laws and violating the Constitution.
She doesn't even get out of bed in the morning without trying to think up five new ways to break laws and violate the Constitution.
Maybe we can send her and the CIA agents responsible to the same remote, desert island.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we can send her and the CIA agents responsible to the same remote, desert island.
Insufficiently remote. They might make it back. I propose the first manned mission to Europa. Right now.
It's true, we will contaminate the planet if the ship actually lands. No need for that. All it needs, really, is a whole bunch of airlocks.
But..... (Score:5, Insightful)
She calls US paranoid for thinking that the government would ever trample our rights.
LK
Suck it Diane, you Statist bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
How's your own medicine taste now?
PS: DIAF.
Did we forget the video torture tapes erased? (Score:5, Insightful)
How quickly we forget. The CIA erased all the torture (interrogation!) interviews, and was pardoned.
No, the assholes that should be hung by balls will never see a jail.
Elitist America (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are not a member of one of various elites, you have no expectation of privacy, protection under the law, or economic security.
If you are a wealthy investor, top tier business executive, elected to a nationwide office, or famous and rich for any reason, your wealth and position will be protected by the economic, political, and military might of the US. Note: entertainers, particularly pro-athletes and popular musicians, can be dropped at any time. Heavily right wing affiliation will keep you in good standing. See Steven Seagal and Ted Nugent for examples.
The only real crime is interfering with a member of the elite. You can have every economic transaction, phone call, medical record, license plate tracking data and email in a secret database, but if anyone spies on a Member of Congress heads will roll, bureaucrats will loose their jobs and institutional budgets will be slashed.
Suck it up. You count for nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
I feel quite dirty even thinking about defending Senator Feinstein... but she has a point... though I don't know if she's making it as she could.
In the US we are taught that we have three co-equal branches (it's really two with a lessor third, but I digress)... so one branch secretly spying on/impeding a second... is not quite kosher... at least with the FBI raid on the congr
Re: (Score:2)
In an escalating dispute with an agency she has long supported, she said the CIA may well have violated criminal laws and the U.S. Constitution.
I feel quite dirty even thinking about defending Senator Feinstein... but she has a point... though I don't know if she's making it as she could.
No, Feinstein doesn't have a point. If she hadn't been an ardent supporter of the CIA for years while knowing of their malfeasance for years then she might. She's just a fucking hypocrite, just like she is on gun control (armed guards and carries a pistol, doesn't want the average Californian to be able to carry a pistol.) Feinstein is an evil harpy of a woman who has only her own best interests in mind. If she doesn't distance herself from her beloved CIA, they will only drag her down. Never listen to Dian
Re: (Score:2)
If she had any evidence, she'd be hauling them in front of her committee by power of subpoena. She just happens to be the chairwoman of the Permanent Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. She could have them subpoena'd and sworn in to testify under pains of perjury within the week.
She has no evidence, so she's making noise in a floor speech. Not surprising for one of the biggest blowhards inside the beltway.
Re: (Score:2)
If she had any evidence, she'd be hauling them in front of her committee by power of subpoena.
I sincerely doubt it. That would be doing something positive and it's nothing she's known for.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't remember who said it but it went something like:
"Yes, there is a club. No, you(*) are not a member."
Something to keep in mind.
(*) - Meaning: folks like us.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Can't remember who said it but it went something like:
"Yes, there is a club. No, you(*) are not a member."
George Carlin
It's from his American Dream [youtube.com] speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Heavily right wing affiliation will cause you to be audited by the IRS
Fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Right wing affiliation? Are you kidding? That gets you audited these days - look at Dr. Ben Carson as an example.
Re: (Score:3)
In a sane world you wingnuts would need a bodyguard to leave your houses.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hatred ?
PS: to me you are all just chariot-racing fans [lesswrong.com].
Re: (Score:2)
In a sane world you wingnuts would need a bodyguard to leave your houses.
Just as Dianne Feinstein does? Would we also need a concealed carry permit and to carry a pistol with us at all times while claiming that there is no need for citizens to exercise such a right, just as Dianne Feinstein does? Feinstein is a politician (which means liar and coward) and a traitor, not least because she has supported the CIA up to today.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as Dianne Feinstein does? Would we also need a concealed carry permit and to carry a pistol with us at all times while claiming that there is no need for citizens to exercise such a right, just as Dianne Feinstein does? Feinstein is a politician (which means liar and coward) and a traitor, not least because she has supported the CIA up to today.
Just as in some perople's world, a person is right or wrong based on other's personal opinions., and not about the subject at hand.
It's just the opposite side of the coin when we decide that Feinstien is wrong and is wrong just because we don't like her. i see no difference, yet the histrionics are awesome.
It would be like if Rick Santorum was run over by a truck, and people said "Let's not look for who hit him, because we don't like Rick Santorum." Allowing our politics to transcend our human decency
Re: (Score:2)
Just as in some perople's world, a person is right or wrong based on other's personal opinions., and not about the subject at hand.
The world is more complicated than you appear to appreciate. I judge a person's veracity based on their past veracity, or lack thereof. Dianne Feinstein has proven herself to be utterly lacking in that department. That means I believe nothing she says. I would have to be a fool otherwise. Remember that parable about the boy who cried wolf? Yeah.
It would be like if Rick Santorum was run over by a truck, and people said "Let's not look for who hit him, because we don't like Rick Santorum."
Clearly, it would not be like that at all. This is more like Feinstein claiming she was upset that someone was run over by a truck while she was behind the wheel, or
Re: (Score:2)
So all of a sudden it is sane to physically harm, maim, or kill people with political views that differ from your own?
I guess I'm glad the world isn't subject to your view of sanity, because you and your post (and the ideas behind it) only add to the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
We Don't Deserve It (Score:2)
There are times when I sincerely believe we, as a nation, don't deserve the Constitution we were given.
Re:We Don't Deserve It (Score:4, Insightful)
We, as a nation, were not given a constitution.
We made a constitution, and by doing so, in that same act, deserved it.
If we are not unmaking it, then by that same act we no longer deserve it.
"We" as a nation, that is. We each, as individuals, deserve to be part of a nation that would make (and in doing so deserve) and defend such a constitution.
Those of us who would support the making and defending of it, at least.
Re: (Score:2)
*if we are now unmaking it... damn typos
Re:We Don't Deserve It (Score:5, Funny)
God would not have revealed the constitution to the Pilgrims on Thanksgiving if we didn't deserve it!
Unlikely, but not Unplausibe (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I find it unlikely that the CIA would do something so ham handed and transparent. And yet, since the War on Terror and the idea that anything goes when the people you're drowning don't wear matching hats, the CIA and the entire IC has lost all credibility, that I can't dismiss the allegation.
That said, Feinstein is a out of touch 80 year-old that thinks mass surveillance is cool [latimes.com], but at the same time gets upset when the IC spies on allies (like everyone else does) [theguardian.com], and when spy on her [nytimes.com].
As a Democrat and a Californian, I say Fuck Feinstein.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who was idiot enough to vote for this woman yet again gets exactly what they deserve. Unfortunately, they also afflicted those of us outside of California with this bullshit.
Thanks again, California!
Re: (Score:2)
They really have no choice. She's in a heavily democratic district (yaaaa gerrymandering!) so the only person who can beat her is another democrat and the DNC won't let that happen.
Re: (Score:2)
As a Californian who happens to be a moderate Republican, I say, no thank you; she's not my type. I've been voting against her for decades, but the liberals can't get enough of her.
Those people aren't really liberals. They think they're liberals, but they're actually knee-jerking libtards. They're not actually any more 'tarded than the knee-jerking conservatools, but there are more of them in California. Feinstein has been anti-rights since forever and there's nothing liberal about voting for her.
I don't think people get it (Score:3)
I do not like Feinstein much, but I do not think that people here are getting just what a big deal this is.
Senator Dianne Feinstein just went nuclear on the CIA.
Just savor that for a minute.
Re:I don't think people get it (Score:4, Interesting)
No, she didn't.
Blowing hot air on the Senate floor during the absence of a quorum isn't "going nuclear" - it's blowing hot air in order to generate headlines.
She's the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Going nuclear would be issuing Congressional subpoenas to Agency officials to be sworn in and testify in front of her committee in open hearings, which she has complete power to do. But, you don't do that unless you have a little thing called "evidence" - doing so would just make her look like even more of a complete jackass, if that's even possible.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think these people give a shit about being called before Congress. Clapper lied under oath to Congress and exactly dick happened to him. The intelligence agencies are in no way responsible to the people nor to the people who supposedly represent the people. Hence, no functional democracy exists in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, he wasn't under oath.
Most of the time they aren't actually sworn in, unless the committee is on the warpath. If they swear you in, then you're in for a bruising.
Pit bull (Score:5, Insightful)
If you create a mean and vicious pit bull, do not be surprised when it turns around and bites you. D'oh!
I saw it coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally someone in Congress speaks up about the overreach of the executive branch. What boggles my mind is why Congress talks so much about it but does so little. These executive agencies exist only because Congress allow them to. If Congress wants them to stop then they should make it stop. One sure way to make it stop is to dissolve the agency responsible.
The issue of government spying is, IMHO, a symptom of professional politicians. Senator Feinstein has spent her entire life in government. She knows nothing about living a life outside of the privileges of a government paycheck. She must think she's "better" than those that voted her into office. That she's "more equal" than the other animals.
I used to think that no one should be able to serve more than two terms in the same office. Now I think that no one should be able to serve more than one. The terms "re-election" and "incumbent" should be foreign to us. There are more than 300 million people in this country, it's nearly statistically impossible that we cannot find someone better for the job than her. She's 80 years old and has served as a Senator for 22 years, it's time she retired.
So, Senator, you don't like the government spying on you? Welcome to the party, there's a lot of us that don't like the government spying on us. The difference between you, Senator, and me is that you can make it all go away with a vote. As a Senator you can have anyone you deem responsible fired, including the President of the United States.
I know you won't though, Senator, because the people that are spying on you work for the same entity that you work for. I don't mean the federal government, I mean the Democrat Party. If there was a Republican POTUS right now you wouldn't be talking to reporters right now, you'd be hauling people in front of a Senate committee and have them answering uncomfortable questions under oath.
Senator, you allowed this beast to be created, now you and I have to live with it. You are the reason we need term limits, you just don't know when to quit. I suspect that you will be like many of your predecessors, the only way you will leave office is feet first. So, FOAD already.
Re: (Score:2)
"The difference between you, Senator, and me is that you can make it all go away with a vote."
So can you.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, I should have qualified that. Senator Feinstein can make it go away tomorrow with a vote.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe. (Score:3)
Maybe.
Meanwhile, it will get you all riled up and distracted from not having a job and from paying more for your "affordable" health care, if you can even find a doctor in your town anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Lesson from Snowden Was (Score:3)
Nothing to Hide (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, as I mentioned in that other topic, I think this is hilariously ironic.
Way to be a world-class hypocrite, Dianne!
Re: (Score:2)
"Um... seems to me we have some duplication here.
I don't know about anybody else, but I sure thought this is what that other thread was all about."
Isn't it hilarious when people mod you "redundant" without checking the time stamps? That was the second post in this topic. The first was from an AC.
Come on, modders. Get your shit together.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the answer to those questions, but I do know that "evil triumphs when good men and women do nothing".
Yes, but we're talking about Dianne Feinstein here. There is no planet on which she would be considered a good woman. She has consistently fought to erode the rights of Americans, she has consistently supported the actions of the CIA spying on American citizens, and defended them as a necessary part of our government even during the CIA Death Squad error (you know, under GHWB.) She's been a blight on American politics literally for as long as I can remember — she took office in California the year aft
Re: (Score:2)