That is what we have all been saying... they are tapping our phones illegally.

Wait... do you think the NSA can't tap any phone the NSA wants to tap?

Mueller clearly says govt needs a warrant to listen to phone calls.

That must make the statement by Mueller true. Seriously?

eom

If true, no one will admit it publicly - just the way the world works in the good old USA.

Saying that the government may not listen into phone calls without a warrant is very different from saying that they cannot listen into phone calls without a warrant.

Of course, they can listen into phone calls with or without a warrant. If they want to use what they hear as evidence in a court of law, they have to get a warrant. If they just want to know what is being said, then they can listen in.

Can refers to having the physical and material capacity to do something.

May means having the legal right to do it.

That is what those words mean in this context.

The statements are worthless.

One wonders what pound of flesh was extracted from Nadler to extract this "change of heart".

eom

The *crickets* were totally expected.

Always look for the entity that has the most to lose when evaluating denials.

Those parties are clearly the Oligarchs that control the corporations that pay campaign funds to the politicians.

Is it any wonder that the politicians have retracted their comments.

Not only do they automatically explain away contradicting evidence, they end up beliving the theory even more after its disproven.

eom

People sitting around LITERALLY arguing with nobody. Screaming names at people who aren't even there. It's astounding. The name-calling is through the roof all while breaking their own arms patting themselves on the back. There are more posts about DUers who "disagree" with them than there are posts supporting the OP although judging by the err.... "loving" they're showing to one another, I can't see more than one person who disagrees with the OP who has even posted in the threads.

I'm starting to wish that DU would drop the whole subject altogether. For those of us interested in this issue but not interested in bullshit, this is not a good place to discuss this topic.

I'm just saying

I guess certain dupe threads aren't deleted

Credibility is not being helped.

It says he's very happy that the administration issued an empty assurance that contradicts the briefing he received earlier.

It doesn't say "the briefing the other day" was incorrect.

They're not interested in understanding it.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

The WH assured Nadler that they aren't wiretapping illegally. Whether one believes the WH assurances or not is up to the individual. Nadler, politically wisely, publicly accepted the WH assurance. Whether he personally believes it or not he didn't say. But you can count on him bookmarking that assurance for future reference. If he obtains evidence the WH is lying...

can be inferred from his statement that he has ALWAYS believed that the NSA can't listen without a warrant.

And he was very clear about what he heard there. No need for inference necessary.

The briefing said, according to Nadler, that there is routine warrantless surveillance by NSA employees on American citizens.

The administration statement said, according to Nadler, that no such thing is happening.

Which Nadler do you want to believe? No problem, because the two needn't be seen as contradictory.

The briefing said one thing and the White House said the opposite.

This isn't about Nadler at all.

I seriously doubt it.

and we're better looking, too

You would think that Jerrold Nadler was testifying under oath in that video. It doesn't matter what he says now, they caught him.
I admire your perseverance.

"Can"? Does anyone think it's impossible?