NSA Cheerleaders Discover Value of Privacy Only When Their Own Is Violated (theintercept.com) 267
Advocatus Diaboli sends this report from Glen Greenwald:
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the NSA under President Obama targeted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his top aides for surveillance. In the process, the agency ended up eavesdropping on "the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups" about how to sabotage the Iran Deal. All sorts of people who spent many years cheering for and defending the NSA and its programs of mass surveillance are suddenly indignant now that they know the eavesdropping included them and their American and Israeli friends rather than just ordinary people. The long-time GOP chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and unyielding NSA defender Pete Hoekstra last night was truly indignant to learn of this surveillance.
In January 2014, I [Greenwald] debated Rep. Hoekstra about NSA spying and he could not have been more mocking and dismissive of the privacy concerns I was invoking. "Spying is a matter of fact," he scoffed. As Andrew Krietz, the journalist who covered that debate, reported, Hoekstra "laughs at foreign governments who are shocked they've been spied on because they, too, gather information" — referring to anger from German and Brazilian leaders. As TechDirt noted, "Hoekstra attacked a bill called the RESTORE Act, that would have granted a tiny bit more oversight over situations where (you guessed it) the NSA was collecting information on Americans." But all that, of course, was before Hoekstra knew that he and his Israeli friends were swept up in the spying of which he was so fond.
In January 2014, I [Greenwald] debated Rep. Hoekstra about NSA spying and he could not have been more mocking and dismissive of the privacy concerns I was invoking. "Spying is a matter of fact," he scoffed. As Andrew Krietz, the journalist who covered that debate, reported, Hoekstra "laughs at foreign governments who are shocked they've been spied on because they, too, gather information" — referring to anger from German and Brazilian leaders. As TechDirt noted, "Hoekstra attacked a bill called the RESTORE Act, that would have granted a tiny bit more oversight over situations where (you guessed it) the NSA was collecting information on Americans." But all that, of course, was before Hoekstra knew that he and his Israeli friends were swept up in the spying of which he was so fond.
Aww, poor babies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Aww, poor babies (Score:5, Insightful)
Fucking rubes, anyone championing the NSA's actions, while working against US interests , deserve what's coming to them - FTFY
Re: Aww, poor babies (Score:3, Insightful)
But its Israel. Aren't Israeli interests the same as American interests? That's what our government keeps saying, and that's why we're always defending them, right? All those reporters who call them out on their neo-Apartheid policies are just anti-semitic, biased, Jew-haters.
Re: (Score:3)
Born-again Christians believe that The End of The World is going to happen really soon and they get to go to Heaven with Jebus v.20. But the catch is that in order for that to happen, Jews have to be in charge of Jerusalem. That's why crazy religious people are adamant that we've got to be unwavering in our support of Israel.
You're not arguing against any kind of sane viewpoint w.r.t. politics, finances, etc. You're arguing against their religious beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
Dont confuse "anti-semetic" with "anti-zionist"!
But then how can we shut down criticism of Israel without responding to arguments?
Re: (Score:2)
Please, read up on Apartheid before throwing around words you don't understand.
http://dictionary.reference.co... [reference.com]
Apartheid was the practice of segregation in South Africa. What race is being segregated in Israel? It isn't Muslims, as Muslims are equal citizens, and the Palestinians were all offered equal citizenship and instead decided to stay the way they are so they can attack Israel instead of being equals in the country.
Nationalism and Fascism while incendiary words to throw around, are nothing like Ap
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize, that Israel and Palestine are the first territorys in the world to have this restriction? How do you think it would have worked out had the international community told the US it couldn't have any settlements in Texas as it was conquored territory? The Palestinians have been given the option to join Israel, they have been offered land by Egypt and offered citizenship in every country in that region, instead they keep trying to kill Israel, who has an older claim on the land than they do.
Re: (Score:3)
Fucking rubes, anyone championing the NSA's actions, while working against US interests , deserve what's coming to them - FTFY
That's still a pretty broad stroke. What are US "interests"? I'll bet I could find a problem with just about anything if I framed US interests in the right way.
Re: (Score:2)
The nuclear deal is an effort to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons. Continuing to fight against it is wishing Iran to have a nuclear weapon faster.
Screw Em (Score:4, Insightful)
Nancy Pelosi, Mike Rogers, all of you who voted for safety over freedom - you deserve neither. - Ben Franklin
Justin Amash - Thanks for standing for the constitution, specifically the 4th amendment.
Re: Screw Em (Score:5, Informative)
Am I the only one concerned that Israel and the Jewish community have such high reaching influence on our country?
Maybe, just maybe, the influence they have and the power they weild is being used to convince us to fight wars that they benefit from but that cost us ruinously.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
nope you're not the only one.
but israel has a good propaganda system. owns a lot of polticians. and has a built in victim excuse for all of it.
and you can't disagree or you're a nazi or antisemite.
you can really see their online social media efforts on some of the larger sites.
anything negative to israel gets blasted.
anything positive gets the circlejerk of the same users every time.
Personally tho. I'm tired of seeing MY TAX MONEY end up going to israel every year. (4 billion this year.)
I don't care
Re: (Score:2)
It's a giant wasteful corporate handout. And we're not gaining anything useful from the charade.
I suppose that depends on your definition of useful. Israel not needing direct civilian and military aid every time the Palestinians get a wild hair up their ass and fire off rockets at population centers seems like a good thing to me.
Re: (Score:3)
With their current arsenal, Israel can handle a hundred years of the overgrown firecrackers Hamas fires.
In short: Israel is not the victim, and has not been the victim since the Six Day War.
Mart
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because clearly what happened on 2014 was Israel just indiscriminately bombing Palestine. Funny I haven't ever heard of any terrorists calling up their victims and allowing them to evacuate before bombing areas being used to lob rockets at others.
Re: Screw Em (Score:4, Informative)
Personally tho. I'm tired of seeing MY TAX MONEY end up going to israel every year. (4 billion this year.) I don't care if we get most of it back when they buy our weapons. It's a giant wasteful corporate handout. And we're not gaining anything useful from the charade.
I agree. especially since "we" don't get it back. Defense contractors get it. So really it's just laundered money for corporate welfare.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally tho. I'm tired of seeing MY TAX MONEY end up going to israel every year. (4 billion this year.) I don't care if we get most of it back when they buy our weapons. It's a giant wasteful corporate handout. And we're not gaining anything useful from the charade.
I agree. especially since "we" don't get it back. Defense contractors get it. So really it's just laundered money for corporate welfare.
Defense contractors get *some* of it. I wonder how much flows back as campaign contributions? Both funneled through the defense industry and directly as bribes to congress and presidents.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
FYI, Israel is 17% muslims. They have no issue with muslims, they have issues with people who want to destroy their country.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes even AC deserves a positive mod point for sheer irony. Ironically enough, I have none to give you, and besides, I don't want to be perceived of as supporting someone on a government watch list, especially someone that mumbles back and forth to him/her anonymous self almost as if they were multiple personalities.
Re: (Score:2)
I see.
So voicing concern about other countries and specific groups that might have a bit too much influence equals being a neo-Nazi? Or is it a valid concern, *except* when it deals with Israel or Jews? They, and they only, should be exempt from any scrutiny or criticism?
Your response was of a deplorable state, I must say. Intellectually dishonest and fallacy-ridden to boot.
His position makes more sense once you check out his post history.
LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
The government should NOT be spying on its own citizens, but spying on heads of state? That's kind of what they are for, right? I mean, if you're opposed to them spying on those guys, you're probably opposed to their existence in general.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)
Spying on active members of Congress is outside of the authority of the executive branch. Unless they had a warrant when they did this, they are doing exactly what Nixon was going to be impeached for.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
These congresscritters only have themselves to blame since they laid the very foundation for this to happen with things like the Patriot Act. I'll shed crocodile tears for the lot of them.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, members of both parties have violated it in the past, and it largely goes unenforced as no one has actually been prosecuted for it since 1803.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Informative)
Except that, technically, those congresscritters may have been violating the law themselves by engaging in direct diplomacy with foreign powers, which is a felony (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ).
But did you know that Nixon did this while he was running for president (bargaining with South Vietnam), and Lyndon Johnson found out the night before the election, but couldn't reveal it because his source was the NSA, and therefore classified?
Committing a felony, and protecting the felons - we're quite good at that!
Re: (Score:2)
Article 1 section 8 gives both houses the abilities to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Nothing prevents congress from talking with foreign nations to make laws. It just will not be a treaty unless a president starts the ball rolling. But it is absurd to think congress cannot create laws, discuss these laws, or do whatever else with foreign nations just because a sitting president wants to make a deal with a foreign nation that is or is not a treaty but also changes the law (at least in its applic
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
NSA is tasked with gathering signals intelligence from foreign sources. Communications originating and staying within the US is off limits (or used to be). Overseas phone calls to a foreign head of state to collude on how to sabotage a significant US bill in Congress are fair game. In fact, the FBI should be brought in to investigate those Congressional members for possible treason.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
According to CBS, it was in Washington, DC (ie, on US soil). So this was NSA spying on US Congressmen engaging in political activities (opposing the President's political agenda) which is a direct part of their job.
Communications that cross the US borde (as in calling a foreign head of state located in a foreign country), even if they originate in the US, are fair game for the NSA to eavesdrop on.
Congress members colluding with a foreign power to undermine the Executive branch's Constitutional mandate to conduct foreign policy is against the law.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
No. According to the Supreme Court, only the President is authorized to actually negotiate with foreign leaders. The Senate may advise him and ultimately must approve any proposed treaty, but they may only negotiate it through the President.
Re: (Score:2)
No. According to the Supreme Court, only the President is authorized to actually negotiate with foreign leaders. The Senate may advise him and ultimately must approve any proposed treaty, but they may only negotiate it through the President.
But did you know that Nixon did this while he was running for president (bargaining with South Vietnam), and Lyndon Johnson found out the night before the election, but couldn't reveal it because his source was the NSA, and therefore classified? Committing a felony, and protecting the felons - we're quite good at that!
Re: (Score:2)
Prove it.
As that information would still be classified, I am curious what source you are using to come up with this.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not even close to what Nixon would have been impeached for.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not even close to what Nixon would have been impeached for.
You mean, being set up? True. This is much worse than what Nixon would have been impeached for. That was just spying on one honeypot. This is spying on the world.
Re: (Score:2)
This is spying on the world.
Which is half of the NSA's job, or did you think they were not supposed to spy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It is right in the first sentence there.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)
If the target of the surveillance is a foreign head of state (Netanyahu), it's not the NSA's fault that US legislators happened to be calling that foreign head of state to get their marching orders.
In fact, members of congress dealing directly with foreign heads of state directly violates the Logan Act, and it would absolutely be appropriate for the NSA to be looking into this. Maybe Pete Hoekstra (R-Tel Aviv) should be answering some questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, those congress members were committing treason, so I think it is pretty fair in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Spying on active members of Congress is outside of the authority of the executive branch. Unless they had a warrant when they did this, they are doing exactly what Nixon was going to be impeached for.
Nixon was forced to resign because he attempted to cover up the scandal, which was a poorly executed burglary of a democratic campaign office. No one knew what his involvement was at the time, simply that he felt he could not allow the office of the POTUS to be tainted by impeachment.
Now nearly 50 years later after release of the majority of the tapes, we can clearly see that he not only directly orchestrated these coverups, payoffs and White House's politcal maneuvering around Watergate, but willingly c
Re: (Score:2)
And what exactly was the acts that were treason?
As far as I know, neither Hillary or the republicans have done much more than break laws and possibly violate the constitution and lie. None of that is treason.
Re: LOL (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a complicated issue. Indeed, in the best case scenario, NSA's existence should be to let us know when another country is getting ready to go to war. However, lately they've been an increasing threat to domestic civil liberties, judicial process, as well as checks and balances / balance of power between branches of government, tipping the power toward the executive.
That being said, here we have many congress people who seem to care more about what Israel thinks than the people they are supposed to
Re: (Score:2)
the reserve system we've been relying on for so long will not last much longer.
With willing slaves, it can go on indefinitely.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I tend to agree. However, these days things seem to be a little more complicated than that.
There is a Hebrew proverb that goes: A cat burned by boiling water will fear lukewarm ones.
Pres. Obama made a promise not to spy on friendly nations. If we take him to his word (ha!), then we can deduct who he considers his friends and not. It seems like Israel and Turkey are in the later categories, which has now turned into a diplomatic matter.
Another thing compounding this particular case was that the eavesdropping
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the contradiction between those two statements imply that it's business as usual despite some recent pledge?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Israel may not have gotten that information by spying. Domeone with access deciding to give it to Israel for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the contradiction between those two statements imply that it's business as usual despite some recent pledge?
I think you are mistaken as to when the pledge was made. It was not made when Polard was released. It was made when he was caught. Not recent in any way.
As for the apparent contradiction, the simple answer is that I just don't know. Like others have pointed out, the information might not have come from outright spying.
Like I said in my original message, I do believe that Israel does not employ full scale espionage effort, but I also don't believe it is as non-existent as some might have you believe. I do se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a few reservations about your intelligence organisations after the Dubai death squad with Australian passports and other issues so I'll have to take their promises with a truckload of salt. As I tried to point out to you in an earlier discussion truth has been a very early casualty of war with the current situation and current administration.
Intelligence organizations keeping secrets has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinain conflict. All intelligence agencies anywhere keep their operations secret. This has nothing to do with our previous, for lack of a better word, discussion.
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
Then by all means cite your sources. So far it is a battle of opinions.
Re: (Score:3)
This article [haaretz.com] as well as many similar articles in previous years, says you're full of it, knowledgeable guy..
Re: (Score:2)
The executive branch spying on the legislative branch, this seems familiar. Where could I have heard of that before. Oh well, WATER under the bridge. No sense closing the GATE once the horse is gone.
Of course, in this case, the legislative branch is also breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the Senate has that power. The Supreme court has determined that the Senate must go through the President, it may not directly enter talks with foreign negotiators.
The arrogance.. (Score:5, Insightful)
These people who routinely advocate for mass surveillance of the rest of us are outraged at being surveilled themselves? The arrogance and/or cognitive dissonance required must be astronomical.
Re:The arrogance.. (Score:5, Funny)
The arrogance and/or cognitive dissonance required must be astronomical.
Remember - we are talking about politicians here. It's part of the job description.
Re: (Score:2)
The arrogance and/or cognitive dissonance required must be astronomical.
Remember - we are talking about politicians here. It's part of the job description.
Most of them are lawyers, a profession that is trained in cognitive dissonance and part of their profession. Perhaps the worst profession to be a politician though economist is up there too
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
lawyers are trained to be in a state of cognitive dissonance. it is the only way you can defend a rapist, or other piece of junk human being.
corporate lawyers have to do the same thing. telling their clients how to avoid legal penalties while doing things that should be illegal by the spirit of the law. (how to hide and shuffle money around legally so you don't pay taxes on it)
that is the sort of person politicians come from.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets hold off on pointing out how worthless they are until maybe after they decide to defend themselves.
This is a moment where we can use these morons to help, lets do that before we tell them they are morons and kick their ass to the curb.
Oh who am I kidding, no one gives a shit about the spying cause we'd have already done something about it if we actually did. American's don't deserve the freedom we have, we're too stupid to defend it.
Re: (Score:2)
Send them to Gitmo to be gently questioned about this sabotaging a treaty business. Generally, treat politicians like a regular person and they'll quickly learn to treat others well (ha ha, just kidding they'll pass laws making special exceptions for themselves).
Re: (Score:2)
Hey NSA employees! Are you concerned about the overreach of the spying capabilities of your organization? Would you like to do something about it, but not face prison time like Manning, or live a live of exile like Snowden? Well here's your chance to start Operation Dirty Laundry! Find some juicy tidbits from import
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that a lack of government would not result in freedom for many... It would result in a select few simply establishing a new government through force (and likely a long war until one group emerged victorious), and then most likely taking away any freedom that the vast majority of people had.
Re: (Score:2)
In summary, bureaucracy lives to serve itself. This is probably 'the' primary argument for minimal government. Like the rest of the government, if the NSA has shown any restraint, it was out of self interested maneuvering, not the interests of others.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder. Trump could end up being the enema washington needs, or he could be the one who stitches the current players together into a cohesive tyranny we'll all regret. No one likes enemas, but sometimes they're necessary when the plumbing isn't working right. This is a good example of why we have term limits.
I'm not sure what to do for this coming election.
Re: (Score:2)
No they were not. The Logan act only applies to those not authorized to do so. The constitution clearly gives congress the powers to do so (article 1 section 8 , regulating commerce with foreign nations).
Congress cannot make a treaty but they certainly can negotiate trade and make laws. This is why you will never see them charged with the Logan act.
Useful idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
They served their purpose.
Word of the day. (Score:5, Informative)
Dear Rep. Hoekstra,
Here's your Word of the Day:
Hypocrisy (noun) - The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.
Sincerely,
The rest of us.
I was expecting a totally different type of story (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, we're being spying on by NBA Cheerleaders? I might have to re-evaluate my position on this issue.
Everybody spies on everybody (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times has Israel been caught spying on the US? All countries spy on each other. Senators conspiring with foreign heads of state though could be considered unamerican, however. It sounds like we were spying on Israel and some congress critters got caught up in it. In other words, the NSA was doing what it's supposed to be doing, monitoring and spying on foreign activity.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times has Israel been caught spying on the US? All countries spy on each other. Senators conspiring with foreign heads of state though could be considered unamerican, however.../quote>
It's not just un-american. It's quite possibly illegal. See the Logan Act.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"How many times has Israel been caught spying on the US?"
"once"
Pure nonsense. Most Jewish Americans aren't like this but there have been lots of Jews that acted like they were American "patriots" but were really working *only* for Israeli interests.
What kills me is Republicans act like they are big patriots but a fair chunk of them are utter morons that unwittingly betray their own country to Israel over and over again. Far right Zionists, with not an iota interest in America, American values, Americans, R
Surveillance Poker (Score:2)
We'll see your Jonathan Pollard [wikipedia.org] and raise.
What an objective title (Score:3)
They must have something to hide (Score:2, Troll)
Jus' sayin'.
There is a song title that feels perfect for this (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's "The Hunter Gets Captured By The Game" by either Roxy Music, Grace Jones and whoever else recorded it.
Apparently, it's a Smokey Robinson song [youtube.com]. I'm going to go ahead and declare the Massive Attack version to be the pinnacle, though. Clearly inspired by the Marvelettes version. I couldn't track down the Roxy Music cover, but I'm not a big fan to begin with.
Yeah (Score:2, Interesting)
A modest proposal for an NSA cheer (Score:2)
"Ricker-racker, firecracker, sis boom bah!
Anonymous collection of metadata, anonymous collection of metadata!
Rah, rah, RAH!"
(note to humor-impaired-NSA-hating moderators: it's just a joke :-)
I don't understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Shove it sideways, asshole. Criticizing Netanyahu and his hatemongers isn't ant-Semitic. It's simple acknowledgement that Israelis are no more immune to electing creeps than anybody else.
Hey! Why the surprised look? (Score:2)
Will it make a difference at election time? Probably not. The regular 95% reelection rate is going to continue for the foreseeable future, and people will come back here and complain like it's not their fault that it does. We've been through this before. It's just another day in paradise. Go back to your drinks, and forget about it.
But we are the good guys! (Score:2)
No need to watch us, just the terrorists!
Re: (Score:2)
That's what we do.
And, just for shits and giggles, what makes you think we consider you the good guys?
This just in (Score:2)
Dictatorships are only fun if it's you who does the dictating.
Turns out people who want to grab power... (Score:2)
The same story in the UK last week (Score:3)
from the british newspaper The Independent [independent.co.uk]
My standard response (Score:5, Insightful)
My standard response to people cheering for new government powers (including NSA spying) is: Would you want these powers in the hands of someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you? If the person is a Democrat, imagine President Donald Trump with those powers. If the person is a Republican, imagine President Hillary Clinton with those powers. Rarely is the person fine with this situation, though they are perfectly willing for someone who shares their political philosophy to have those powers.
This here is a real-life example of that response. These people are just fine with the NSA spying on people, but once that spying turns on them they find it a violation of their rights. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't declare that "all people like me are special and exempt from X." You either are for the NSA spying on everyone including you or you oppose the NSA spying.
Here's hoping their outrage isn't short lived and instead turns into a swell of political opposition to NSA spying.
Re: (Score:2)
My standard response to people cheering for new government powers (including NSA spying) is: Would you want these powers in the hands of someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you? If the person is a Democrat, imagine President Donald Trump with those powers. If the person is a Republican, imagine President Hillary Clinton with those powers. Rarely is the person fine with this situation, though they are perfectly willing for someone who shares their political philosophy to have those powers.
What staggers me here is is that there are a bunch of people who can't even do that simple bit of reasoning. How many years was it again since someone you despised was in office? Why don't you ever think it'll happen again?
More than anything else, this large scale willful ignorance is why I'm not full bore libertarian. There's too many people who just don't get the point of libertarianism and probably never will.
OTOH (Score:2)
When it comes to government spying... (Score:2)
Why, I'm positively gobsmacked! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Movies play it when people fuck up, or get caoght in their own game.
And they usually make a sad face when they realise this. Hence "sad" in the site name.
That the people watching it find it humorous is beside the point of the trombone itself.
I cant beleave i had to explain this shit to someone.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is they were not explicitly spying on congress. They were spying on Netanyahu, Erdogan, etc. Trouble is when those people, or ambassadors from those countries, contact congress or vice versa, you end up with recordings of congress. Problem is what to do when you get that data; do you drop it like a hot potato, pass it on, etc? The president's office decided, naively, to let the NSA decide.
This isn't mass spying as implied in the summary, it's generic targeted spying.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is they were not explicitly spying on congress
And yet they still did which is in violation of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but what if it's a recording? You can stop listening if you listen live, but if you collect recordings later then what?
Re: (Score:2)
That is a rhetorical question, since the NSA doesn't think that it is constrained by US laws or the US constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't even bother to read the summary? It clearly states they were snooping conversations that included US Lawmakers aka members of Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why the summary clearly states that the were snooping on conversations that involved "US lawmakers".
Re: (Score:2)
What's the problem? As long as the targets aren't Congress members
Maybe you should have kept reading past the first sentence? To quote the second sentence of the summary
In the process, the agency ended up eavesdropping on "the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups" about how to sabotage the Iran Deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Article 1, Section 6
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Right, so treason and felony then. Engaging in direct diplomacy with foreign governments.
Re: (Score:2)
So the difference between him and his predecessors is only that Nobel Prize anymore.
Well, except Carter.
Re: (Score:2)
These people always say, why worry, if you have nothing to hide.
So, my question is what does this guy have to hide?
He's a politician. Probably a lot. Bad example...