Bingo?

When will it ever end?

The NSA can tap phones. Bush told them to tap phones and he gave them billions to tap phones and so they are tapping phones. Without warrants. Because, y'know, you are not safe if they don't tap your phone.

But how would you know they are tapping phones? Officially, it's all a secret.

I'm sure he dates a pole-dancer, too....would you check into that?

LOL...You couldn't be more obvious if you shot off flares while masturbating in public wearing only a lampshade.

Sleep tight!

with tired snark too if I were you.

Quickly.

EDIT:

Yes, it's the M peach brigade. Most titles resemble DU.

http://laroucheirishbrigade.wordpress.com/category/nerobama/

He's run for the Democratic Party nomination for President seven times but didn't win. Still plenty of money there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche_U.S._Presidential_campaigns#Campaign_statistics

It does no good to argue with a cult. They know it all and know nothing, all at the same time, and hate all who don't go along.

That may represent a genuine low point in American politics!

a real wingnut site IMO

I think he was supportive of Obama leading up to 2008, but he laid it on the line in this article.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_Ways_With_The_Right

Nowadays Pamela Geller and Jim Hoft seem to be his biggest targets.

Have you found something on the CSPAN video that disagrees with what CNET said?

all provided under a CNET banner headline designed to misrepresent the exchange

The response to Nadler, in the public hearing (which, of course, CNET gave a link to, so everyone can check the context if they want) is not what's under question. This is about what was said to Nadler in the closed hearing, and how Nadler described it. CNET quoted the relevant section of what he said.

Now, it's possible that, during the hidden hearing, Nadler misunderstood an answer he was given. Since this information is only given out to members of Congress, we have to rely on them to be the reporters for the people.

From the CNET article: "... Rep. Nadler's disclosure that NSA analysts can listen to calls without court orders ..."

The actual exchange:

~snip~

Nadler: ... We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn’t need a new warrant. Other-words is what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict.

Mueller: I’m not sure it’s the answer to the same question. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt.

Nadler: Well I asked the question both times and I think it’s the same question, so maybe you better go back and check, because someone was incorrect.

Mueller: I will do that. That is my understanding of the process.

Nadler: OK, I don’t question your understanding. It was always my understanding. And I was rather startled the other day and I wanted to take this opportunity to —

Mueller: I’d be happy to clarify it.

Nadler: Thank you.

~snip~

where were the live blogs on the sites of the US "free press"?????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023010277

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/13/fbi-director-mueller-senate-nsa-live

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York accuses Mueller of giving a misleading answer to a question about whether agents need to seek further permission before examining individual calls.

Mueller said that agents need to do so. But Nadler says that answer conflicts with an answer given in a private hearing to Congress on Tuesday.