since when has ignoring the law and constitution been considered due process. But than again you think people disliking bush for his very real transgressions is them hating for being a right winger. There was no due process here and only the most deluded of ideologue would claim that there was due process.
Wrong. I asked you to prove your "very real transgressions" (several times) and all I got was your immature blabbering about policies you didn't like. You seemed incapable then of understanding the difference in that and in the law. This is another fine example. There is a law in place with an oversight system. It worked. There has to be legal standing for a trial, which I doubt you will get here. But sure, keep beating this drum. The amount that you, and many other critics of the NSA, don't understand about the programs run by the agency could fill numerous posts.
Yes you are. They have been proven to you numorous times you just don't want to admit because it's easier for you to accuse those that don't like bush for his transgressions to be partisan hacks rather than dealing with the fact that you yourself is the partisan hack. Dude the NSA or CIA has come out and admitted they broke the law. And no it didn't work. I will keep beating this drum. The amount that you understand about what their tapping entails could easily fill a book or two. They are not going after specific people but just grabbing info willynilly no matter what the people have done. The phones have been tapped in such a way to grab everything that runs through them. That's illegal
Yep. That's me. Partisan hack. Excuse me, that would be partisan hack who has never voted for Bush or any other Republican. Your allegations have been proven? That's a laugh. I asked you to show code sections and laws, and you never could do that because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. All you do is parrot anti-Bush rhetoric and complain about policies, labeling them "illegal" because you don't like them. Um, no they haven't. Or at least they haven't in anything I have read. But hey, if they have, then post something that shows where they admitted this, seeing as how unreliable you've shown yourself to be on this and any other issue. I don't think anyone at either agency thinks they broke the law, because the president, the attorney general and the Department of Justice all gave them the go-ahead for EVERYTHING they did.
Still doesn't mean your not a right wing partisan hack. Me and other esteemed liberals here have proven our allegations which you have ignored. Um the constitution. You know that little thing od due process you claim that was followed even though it wasn't. For someone who has never voted republican you sure do toe the party line. and No I don't label them Illegal because I dislike them. I label them Illegal because they are. Yes they have. Well that what happens when you only used fox news approved sources. I will but next week your going to continue to rant how no one has proved their allegations.http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/fbi_under_fire_.html Yeah I'm the unreliable one. Guess you, buffalo, mad, and the other sciforums righties got to close ranks. God forbid you guys learn anything. way to channel nixon also as for my alleged lack of knowledge if you want I'll explain where in the grid they are placing the taps, the amount of info that can be gained, and why its a big deal.
Chapter and Verse? Looking back to March, 2008: And I'm pretty sure you read the article, since you did such a hideous snip-job ("I edited for clarity and brevity," you explained). Among the things you snipped out of that article (and presumably read, since you were able to determine that it was too long or too muddled to include it in your improperly-quoted distortion): • One problem, however, was the volume and the ambiguity of the data that had already been generated. ("There's too many calls and not enough judges in the world," the former senior intelligence official said.) • Instead, the N.S.A. began, in some cases, to eavesdrop on callers (often using computers to listen for key words) or to investigate them using traditional police methods. A government consultant told me that tens of thousands of Americans had had their calls monitored in one way or the other. (Hersh) So in the meantime, since what you want is quotes from the federal register, why don't you cite for us the public law that made what they were doing legal. They, as in the people taking part in the program, knew damn well that they were dancing in criminal territory. Indeed, by the very article you provided, the intelligence services were grabbing everything they could get their hands on, which actually led to further problems; they customized their grab to give it an appearance of legitimacy, but facing an overwhelming amount of data, abandoned that pretense and just started eavesdropping. Doing so without warrants is a violation of the law. The [FISA] bill requires, for the first time, a prior judicial warrant for all electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States in which communications of U.S. persons might be intercepted. It clarifies the Executive's authority to gather foreign intelligence surveillance in the United States. It will remove any doubt about the legality of those surveillances which are conducted to protect our country against espionage and international terrorism. It will assure FBI agents and others involved in intelligence collection that their acts are authorized by statute and, if a U.S. person's communications are concerned, by a court order. And it will protect the privacy of the American people. (President Jimmy Carter) From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978: (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately. (2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title. (via Legal Information Institute) See also Public Law 105-272 (Oct. 20, 1998), an "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999". 105-272 amends FISA, but does not touch the basic requirements above. Public Law 106-120, a similar authorization for FY 2000, further amends FISA, expanding the definition of an "agent of a foreign power". Public Law 106-567 amended FISA to establish new boundaries on federal officials authorizing applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The basic requirements of FISA 1978 still have not changed. The USA PATRIOT Act further broadened applicable definitions of circumstances acceptable to the FISC. Even after reducing safeguards against abuse, this still wasn't enough. Public Law 107-108 (Dec. 28, 2001) altered the period the Attorney General can wait before obtaining a retroactive warrant from 24 to 72 hours. Public Law 108-458 (originally set for sunset expiration in February 2006) is part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and amended FISA to alter the Attorney General's reporting obligations. Still, § 1802 remains intact. And this brings us up to the FISA argument of 2007-08, which we covered in the rightward-drift thread in which you provided an example of what you now say you've never read. ____________________ Notes: Hersh, Seymour M. "Listening In". The New Yorker. May 29, 2006. NewYorker.com. Accessed April 27, 2009. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/05/29/060529ta_talk_hersh Carter, James E. "Statement on Signing S. 1566 Into Law". October 25, 1978. Administration of Jimmy Carter, 1978. Center for National Security Studies. CNSS.org. Accessed April 27, 2009. ftp://cnss:CNSS07@cnss.org/Carter.pdf Legislation and Public Laws Cited: Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, § 1802. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University School of Law. Cornell.edu. Accessed April 27, 2009. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html Public Law 105-272: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. October 20 , 1998[/i]. GPO.gov. Accessed April 27, 2009. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ272.105.pdf Public Law 106-120: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. GPO.gov. Accessed April 27, 2009. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ120.106 Public Law 106.567: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. GPO.gov. Accessed April 27, 2009. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ567.106.pdf Public Law 107-108: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. December 28, 2001. Center for National Security Studies. CNSS.org. Accessed April 27, 2009. ftp://cnss:CNSS07@cnss.org/Public Law 107-108.pdf S. 2845: Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Center for National Security Studies. CNSS.org. Accessed April 27, 2009. ftp://cnss:CNSS07@cnss.org/FINAL HR10 passed in House and Senate.pdf See Also: Center for National Security Studies. "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)". CNSS.org. Accessed April 27, 2009. http://www.cnss.org/fisa.htm
Since people don't seem to be getting the problem with the taps is I'm going to explain a little how they are doing. Phone calls travel along fiber optic cables. There are nodes where the fibers go. These nodes I believe are called regent huts. Going on equivalencies of the lowest level of fibers we are talking several hundred fibers go through each one of these huts. They run into into banks of machines that direct them to the right fiber and may also boost the signal strength. what they are doing is taking all those fibers that would go through the hut they have tapped and making go through their tap. So they have the fiber for the person they want plus a whole lot of other fibers. They use computers to look for key words. Its very easy to abuse this and peak into everyday americans lives or use this against political rivals.
You're trying to make a point to the fact-free fanatics? I don't think, PJdude, that a technical explanation is going to serve much use. The discussion needs to reach a different, deeper level. You know, kind of like the argument over whether a drug-sniffing dog is searching you (it isn't) or the air molecules around you (it is). At present, though, it seems you're dealing with someone who thinks the criminal investigation process is complete once it determines that a crime has occurred. Take a look at posts #4 and 5, for instance. JPS made the apt point: And the response was typical: Insult, reiterate, make no substantive counterpoint: And it keeps on going. In post #6, JPS stood by the metaphor and in post #8, Counte simply dodges away: "Whatever. Let me know when you have something of substance to offer." Now, whatever you or I might think of Counte's individual character, put it aside for a moment and think about this in its basic elements. A system works when nobody is held accountable; that's the basic, underlying argument Counte has put forward. He does not intend to explain how that can be. He does not intend to do anything other than attack and degrade. So don't stress yourself trying to explain anything remotely technical; you're either preaching to the choir or shouting at impaired ears. Counte advocates criminality in government. There's no point in getting remotely technical until he offers something substantial to explain why those who violated the law should not be prosecuted. Until he can show that due process in the United States means that nobody should be held accountable for criminal behavior, there's not a whole lot to discuss. He just wants to repeat himself and insult people.
Tiassa, I have no desire to respond to your personal attacks, inferences, recasting of my arguments or you bizarre ability to pull posts back from years past to revisit issues long ago decided or abandoned. Truly, you are a broken record. Right. If you say something enough, it's true. Right. If you say something enough, it's true. Um, which part? You obviously pay very little attention to what I post then. Right. If you say something enough, it's true. Proof is never required. Then prove it! You're a fool. I rarely, if ever, read Fox. If you look back at items I've cited, most of them come from James Risen and the NYT, Seymour Hersh and The New Yorker and the actual documents themselves. You, on the other hand, do little more than blabber like a pre-teen about his favorite band. It's pathetic, tiresome and beneath me really even addressing. You are aware there is a difference in the NSA and the FBI? That Patriot and FISA aren't the same thing? Congrats on demonstrating your historical ignorance. I'm aware of all of this. I've read Risen's articles and his books. The problem is your speculating and not reporting. The initial "infractions" involved less than 500 people. I recently wrote this: "NSA secured the cooperation of several large telecommunications companies. The companies allowed the agency access to the physical “switches” that route domestic and international phone calls and e-mails. Access to the switches gave the agency unfettered access to entire communication networks with absolutely no outside oversight." The proviso is: "NSA created a data mining program that established and then began monitoring an expanding web of people connected to the initial phone numbers and addresses. Most of the people caught in these webs were overseas, but hundreds were located inside the U.S." Hundreds. Wow. And this was the catalyst for the entire debate, which is now moot because the Congress approved all the changes to the FISA issue. They also put in additional oversight, which noticed and corrected the incident you and Tiassa are whining about here.
There was no insult. No its true because its true and has been proven to be true in the past. Just because you ignore it doesn't change the fact. Tenth amendment and the part about due process. I have. Thats why a said it. Right. If you say something enough, it's true. Proof is never required. Then prove it![/QUOTE] I couldn't get it through your fellow rightie buffalo's head and I'm probably not going to get it through yours but just because you don't want to admit something has been proven doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. I guess someone missed the kindergarten lesson on subject verb agreement. And yet you still manage to come up with the fox news approved republican party line. Wah wah wah. Cry me a river. Nothing beneath filth like you. Yes. Congrats on your historical ignorance. I'm not speculating. Very good an expanding web. Things like that increase exponentially. Plus the fact that they were using the program to target journalists. Actually its not moot. Constitution is higher than a congressional law. and I like the they only abused it a little bit argument. The problem is before they can be data mined they need to be recorded.
If this is the case, then why can't you post something? Anything? Why is all we get you continually claiming it's true, it's true?!?! Maybe if you stamp your feet and whine when you say this, people will actually pay attention. Or maybe not. Seriously, it's easy to prove something, like, "the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor" or that "the Romans built a coliseum." It takes two seconds to post a link showing these facts because they are facts. The problem is your dealing in subjectivity, and you know very little about the topic. Saying something is true time and again or something is illegal time and again and never showing how or why or citing anything substantial comes across for exactly what it is: Puerile partisan whining. So that's it. You just throw out an amendment and it's open and shut, right? Apparently, you know less about the law than I thought. It is, for example, perfectly legal for the government to suppress speech. Did you know that? Probably not. No doubt when confronted with such a case you would just glibly type "First Amendment" and think that it equated to a legal argument overturning the above. Guess what? It doesn't. Again. You say something has been proven. I've yet to see where. Words on a screen don't prove something. This from the person who can't be bothered to spell-check or edit his posts for clarity? That's rich. I'll leave off actually criticizing you, as attacking what may or may not be grammatical errors is a hunting ground only for those to weak to actually stalk real game. In other words, you have nothing of substance to say, so now you're trying to look smart by attacking my grammar. That's pretty childish, but it's also about what I expect from you. I mean, you're the guy who boasted about how many books he has read, right? The difference between me and you is that I feel sorry for you, largely because I know just how ignorant you are of these issues. You, on the other hand, feel some kind of real hatred toward me. It's sad really. You have never met me, know nothing about me, beyond the fact that I don't agree with your inane worldview. This, apparently, qualifies me as "filth." I should add here, that intolerance like this is one of the sentiments that helped fill the aisles at Nazi party conventions. Repeating my lines back to me equals an argument? Not really. The ignorance I was referring to was your inept metaphor. Richard Nixon, in no way, shape or form had DOJ approval for what he did. In fact, it was the Congress and the DOJ that investigated Nixon (read a book). George Bush had teams of lawyers telling him he could use his War Powers as well as the declarations after Sept. 11 to do what he did. I'm not saying that I agree with this opinion, only pointing out the very real and legalistic difference that you have failed to notice in rush to Nixon. I've never read anywhere of a journalist being targeted, and I would like you to prove that statement. And in your rush to condemn, you seem to miss the nuance. The fact the program could expand is meaningless to your argument if it expands in a legal and useful way. In the case we have here, the expansion in a potentially illegal way was stopped. Congressional law stands until challenged in the Supreme Court. As my link showed, every single FISA case brought in the wake of 9/11 and PATRIOT has been dismissed. As for the mining, you don't know how it works, and seem oblivious to the fact that innocent calls and emails and such routinely get swept up in investigations when federal authorities are listening or monitoring people (how can they know what they have unless they record and listen to it?). All that is required is that the Feds send a letter informing the innocent party what happened. Basically, the letters say, "you were overheard as part of a federal investigation. Sorry." This has been SOP for years (read a book).
Whats the point in posting something if you have already shown your going to ignore it if you don't like what it says. why not you accepted it when your fellow rightie did. Well considering the fact I have used it in an argument to support gun control I would have to say I do know it. I really despise people like you. The your different than me so you must be stupid thought process is really fucking old. one again no point is potsing any thing because you have shown you will ignore it. I treat people with the same level of respect as they have shown to others. Yeah the ignorant one is feels sorry for me Your willfully ignorant. I hate all willfully ignorant people. They are dangerous and holding back humanity from becoming truly civilized. Not as much as people who cared not to learn what the nazis were about. Why argue it was clear the analogy went over your head. Your supporting the admin's argument that if the executive says its ok its ok. Which is a very Nixon like argument. Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the news. Guess this is what happens when you only use republican part approved sources. and save the bs about you not being a republican. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck its a duck. but not preventing it from being used in illegal ways. once again you fail to see what my problem is stemming from your lack of knowledge of the phone system. They were tapping fibers that had nothing to do with the people they were looking into. That's Illegal. say there are big fibers A B C each carrying 20 little fibers. Say the guy they wanted to tap calls were being carried of little fiber B10. Rather than tapping little fiber B10 they tapped big fibers A B C. So they have the fiber carrying the calls of the guy they want in addition they have also tapped 59 fibers carrying calls that have nothing to do with guy they are looking into.
So you've been asked -- what four or five times now -- and you still can't post something? I think you're being exposed for the fraud you are. . . What are you talking about? Fellow righties? Put the Kool Aid and try making sense. Your inane arguments show otherwise. The mere fact you are familiar with something doesn't mean you understand it and can apply it properly either. As I took some pain to point out, simply saying a law, as you've done several times now, in no way equals a argument worth considering. You should reread what I wrote. I admit it's perfectly possible for people familiar with this issue to have an opinion completely different than my own. In fact, my own views on the issue have changed during my investigations of it (something that probably never happens to you). The fact I don't think these people are "filth" really says all you need to know about me. It also says plenty about you and people like you (of which there are many on this vaunted website, with all its intellectual content). I claim you don't know what you're talking about not because we disagree, but simply because anyone who knows something about this issue can see you have little or no idea what the fuck you are talking about. You're simply parroting whatever empty-headed opinion piece you absorbed somewhere. Right. Keep dodging ever having to back anything up. You're right in assuming I have little or no respect for you (I don't). You patently know little about what you speak here. The difference is I go after you on the issues. I don't waste bandwidth picking apart your posts from grammar, though I have on occasion commented that the least you could do is use the automatic fucking spell-check. And yet when you encounter someone you claim is ignorant your response is to post nothing that informs them. You attack them, turn your nose up at their ignorance and label them "filth." This, apparently, is how you think humanity advances and how the "truly civilized" behave? It's laughable bub. Really. It is. Then explain how wonderfully adept and nuanced it is. And try to make it historically accurate. I may have read a book or two about Nixon that you might not have in you stacks of hundreds that you referenced. Learn how to read. Congress is not the executive. Neither is the Justice Department. None of the sources I cited in this thread are "Republican". You, on the other hand, have cited absolutely nothing. Again, I challenged you to provide proof about the journalist claim and you post nothing. In a word: Pathetic. Actually, they were tapping switches, and I've read all about this. You continue to talk in legal terms and yet provide no proof of how that is the case. I've posted a link showing how every case involving the issue has been tossed out on its ear. And it doesn't matter, unless they abuse that access by actually mining the data. There is no proof that happened. All we have is speculation and worry that it could happen, some of which, I actually share. But that's not what you are arguing, if indeed, you are arguing anything. I'm not sure I can tell that you have a point at all.
No fraud. Tiassa and Ice in another thread proved it quite well. If those two esteemed member couldn't get a concept through to you I know I won't so I see no point in trying. Are you sure your just playing stupid? I know that. and there is nothing inane about my argument. Well there is your problem You think I'm trying to argue with you. I'm not. I'm merely trying to show you the flaws in your beliefs. Right Right. Claims are nothing without anything to back it up. Yeah that you think its ok to be willfully ignorant. Yes yes more of your usual fare of attacking those you can not best. wow your really are an arrogant little prick aren't you. The fact that I have technical knowledge of how the phone system would be tapped means I don't know anything. No that would be you my opinion is based on the concept of due process which you which to ignore despite your protests other wise and my knowledge of the phone system. Your argument applied in other contexts show is for the idiocy it is. I suppose you think its ok if in addition to search the house on the warrant for drugs the cops search every house on the block. Because that's essentially whats happening here. I refer you back to the post of Tiassa and Ice who both made very good arguments which you ignored. You rejected all arguments in the past that disagreed with and I see no reason to give you another one you will just cast aside willy nilly. trying to make a point to you would be a waste of mine time as well as yours. I know. people like you have no respect for anyone unless they agree with them. A swing and a miss. Your random attacks on Tiassa, ice and, me belie that. Well excuse me for pointing out a major fuck up. The only way it could have been worse is if you got the basic sentence structure wrong. Well considering I have long since starting a using a spellcheck...[fill with insult of your choosing] I have twice made explanations you have ignored them. Your ignoring is what makes you willyfully ignorant and flith. Civilization advances by people always trying to grow and seek more knowledge(aka also looking at everything form more than one angle) I already know how. correct incorrect. They weren't tapping "switches" They wouldn't be route EVERYTHING(ie. all the fibers.) through the tap if they were. The actual "switch" is were the fiber runs into the machine. It has a id chain( something like SBCA01076523[this is a fake one. it would go to santa barbara, california, floor 1, row 7, panel 6523] but it which gives you city, state, floor of building, row of machines, and the panel where the fiber goes) and if that's what they were doing no problem. You have to go that far if you want to get an idea where any body connected to them is. But when you run EVERYTHING trough the tap that's not legal and we know that that's what they are doing because telcom employees have come out under whistle blower protection to the media to say that's what was happening. read more.
The obvious and important point is that for the US "regime" (administration/government/whatever) to have any integrity as the voice of authority, there should be NO hesitation to investigate ANY breach of law, by ANY agency, swiftly, thoroughly and sustained, until clarification is obtained as to WHO, WHY, and HOW the breach of law occurred, and those responsible prosecuted. This is clearly not a priority with the present Administration. There is a bit of talk, but thus far no do. The most self righteous government in the world, who is so quick to criticize other nations of breaches of democracy and the rule of law, seems to be one of the biggest offenders.
Rarely, if ever. And that's my point. Now he's scrambling and pointing to other members (who he obviously looks up to, ideologically speaking) for confirmation of his views. Problem is, neither of them post facts, either. They tend to post their opinions backed up by other like-minded opinions, or when pressed, they link to things that often don't say what they think it does or doesn't prove their part. Regardless, this is all rather juvenile and is a perfect example of why I largely spend my time elsewhere. You claim you read my posts and then attempt to "prove" your argument by citing the past arguments (not your own) of the two people on this website that I hold in as low regard as I do you? This is not a terribly impressive strategy. What's more, it's also not AN ARGUMENT OR PROOF. It's just more chum for you to throw out to try to save face. So far as I can tell, you still haven't posted on fact or given us one link that backs anything up that you've argued here. You're just making noise, which is about all this site is good for, so you fit in well here. No, I generally didn't know what to make of your incoherent attempt at an insult. It was kind of clumsy. The fact you fail to see the difference in arguing and arguments is precisely why you ARE doing what at the expense of the other. By that, I mean you haven't presented an argument -- at least, not in any respectable and recognizable form. You're just flapping your lips. Seriously, look at you: This is laughable. I've asked you, like, five or six times to try to make an argument, to try to back something up. You haven't. All we get is the sort of putrid bile, which you think passes for something. I've posted "something" to back up my thoughts. You haven't. No, the fact you don't how the program was started, how it operated, how the DOJ operates wiretaps or what legal precedents the Bush people relied on are the reasons you don't know much of "anything." Additionally, you seem to be ignoring or overlooking actual events -- the legal challenges and dismissals to the relevant programs. Furthermore, you've demonstrated, in this thread and elsewhere, a complete lack of understanding for how the legal system works. I think you know fuck all about due process, especially so far as national security cases go, which are very different than civil or criminal cases. That's not what is happening here, which is why I say you have no idea what you are talking about. The Justice Department is a part of the Executive Branch. It is not the Executive. Check you subject verb agreement . . . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh, and your metaphor still sucks for all the same reasons I outlined. The DOJ never was involved in any of Nixon's shenanigans. Never. This comes straight from Risen's book: "NSA secured the cooperation of several large telecommunications companies. The companies allowed the agency access to the physical “switches” that route domestic and international phone calls and e-mails. Access to the switches gave the agency unfettered access to entire communication networks with absolutely no outside oversight." He broke the story. He writes for the NYT -- you know another one of those "Fox" sources I keep referring to. . .Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
