NSA says Snowden e-mails exempt from public disclosure and secret
The National Security Agency has acknowledged it retains a record of e-mail communications from former contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden, but says those records are exempt from public disclosure under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
In a letter responding to a June 27 FOIA request from The Desk, the NSA’s chief FOIA officer Pamela Phillips wrote that while the agency has retained records related to Snowden’s employment as a contractor, they are being withheld from public examination because, among other things, releasing the records “could interfere with law enforcement proceedings, could cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, could reveal the identities of confidential sources or would reveal law enforcement techniques and procedures.”
Other records are being withheld because those documents were “also found to be currently and properly classified…and remains classified TOP SECRET, SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL.”
The letter marks the first time the NSA has publicly acknowledged retaining communication and employment records related to Snowden’s time as a contractor.
http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/2014/07/nsa-says-snowden-emails-exempt-from-public-disclosure/
“The NSA’s new discovery of written contact between me and its lawyers — after more than a year of denying any such contact existed – raises serious concerns,” Snowden told NBC News in a follow-up e-mail. “It reveals as false the NSA’s claim to Barton Gellman of the Washington Post in December of last year.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
Considering that the NSA just confirmed their existence....
OOPS, no, the NSA did NOT just confirm their existence.
attacks about 'logical fantasies' with no explanation as to where they were. I guess it's a bit unfair to ask relevant questions that interfere with the story line, but I have a hard time with non-fact based discussions. 
and once again, the NSA will have egg on their face.
The tighter they try to seal it with lies, the more glaring their deception becomes. That's how it works - if you lie too much, people stop believing you 
. Have fun with it!
I am shocked. 
with plenty of negative commentary. Yes, the only way DUers knew about the "negative" stuff was from reporters at the time. This is fairly normal for this site. Why are you now insisting that DUers had to have come up with the story? Relying upon source material for information has never been a problem before... 
That Snowden detractors seized upon the info as provided is demonstrably true. Here's the link to the one DU thread I have saved on my phone....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022983957
I'll post the other threads about the girlfriend when I get home and can search better. Or you can google them yourself "Snowden girlfriend democraticunderground June 2013". There's plenty. There was even one "random" poster who kept bemoaning how shitty Snowden was to the "poor fiance" as recently as this spring!
I'm holding horses for the farrier and Im not super focused on this.
The article I copy and pasted referenced a local reporter who interviewed Snowden's neighbors.
Snowden's neighbors told the reporter everything they know about him. The neighbors said a lot of things including the fact that they saw boxes piled floor to ceiling in his garage. I didn't think anything of it at the time and the article I posted wasn't focused on boxes in his garage.
Nobody on DU actually disparaged Snowden for having boxes in his garage and nobody has been able to provide a link to a DUer disparaging Snowden for having boxes in his garage.
The only people who really focused on boxes are Snowden's supporters. As you can see above, they are the only ones who even bring it up.
You said it better than me.
Thanks!
Awesome.
LMAO
"The verdict is in"
Are you banging a little gavel when you type that?
You are unable to link to a single post where a DUer disparages Snowden for having boxes in his garage.
An article referencing a reporter who interviewed neighbors? The neighbors weren't even disparaging Snowden for having boxes. The neighbors told the reporter everything they know about him including the fact they saw boxes floor to ceiling in his garage. There was no disparaging him over boxes.
The fact that you are unable to link to a single post where a DUer disparages Snowden for having boxes is quite telling. The only people who mention boxes are Snowden supporters.
It's rather pathetic, but amusing at the same time.
Posting an article where neighbors interviewed by a local report say they saw boxes piled floor-to-ceiling in his garage....
...that's character assassination of Snowden!!!
It also apparently means hordes of DUers attacked Snowden for having boxes!!
but still no links....
You really are a hoot!!!
LMAO!
Still waiting....
Methinks I'll be waiting forever!
LMAO!
What you're essentially saying is that neighbors telling a local reporter that they saw boxes piled floor-to-ceiling in his garage counts as DUers attacking Snowden for having boxes.
You can't provide actual links to DUers attacking Snowden for boxes because they don't exist.
Recommend!
From before your time: Know your BFEE: The Carlyle Group.
Behind the Curtain: Booz Allen Hamilton and its Owner, The Carlyle Group
Written by Bob Adelmann
The New American; June 13, 2013
According to writers Thomas Heath and Marjorie Censer at the Washington Post, The Carlyle Group and its errant child, Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), have a public relations problem, thanks to NSA leaker and former BAH employee Edward Snowden. By the time top management at BAH learned that one of their top level agents had gone rogue, and terminated his employment, it was too late.
For years Carlyle had, according to the Post, “nurtured a reputation as a financially sophisticated asset manager that buys and sells everything from railroads to oil refineries”; but now the light from the Snowden revelations has revealed nothing more than two companies, parent and child, “bound by the thread of turning government secrets into profits.”
And have they ever. When The Carlyle Group bought BAH back in 2008, it was totally dependent upon government contracts in the fields of information technology (IT) and systems engineering for its bread and butter. But there wasn't much butter: After two years the company’s gross revenues were $5.1 billion but net profits were a minuscule $25 million, close to a rounding error on the company’s financial statement. In 2012, however, BAH grossed $5.8 billion and showed earnings of $219 million, nearly a nine-fold increase in net revenues and a nice gain in value for Carlyle.
Unwittingly, the Post authors exposed the real reason for the jump in profitability: close ties and interconnected relationships between top people at Carlyle and BAH, and the agencies with which they are working. The authors quoted George Price, an equity analyst at BB&T Capital: "[Booz Allen has] got a great brand, they've focused over time on hiring top people, including bringing on people who have a lot of senior government experience." (Emphasis added.)
For instance, James Clapper had a stint at BAH before becoming the current Director of National Intelligence; George Little consulted with BAH before taking a position at the Central Intelligence Agency; John McConnell, now vice chairman at BAH, was director of the National Security Agency (NSA) in the ‘90s before moving up to director of national intelligence in 2007; Todd Park began his career with BAH and now serves as the country's chief technology officer; James Woolsey, currently a senior vice president at BAH, served in the past as director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and so on.
BAH has had more than a little problem with self-dealing and conflicts of interest over the years. For instance in 2006 the European Commission asked the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Privacy International (PI) to investigate BAH’s involvement with President George Bush’s SWIFT surveillance program, which was viewed by that administration as “just another tool” in its so-called “War on Terror.” The only problem is that it was illegal, as it violated U.S., Belgian, and European privacy laws. BAH was right in the middle of it. According to the ACLU/PI report,
Though Booz Allen’s role is to verify that the access to the SWIFT data is not abused, its relationship with the U.S. Government calls its objectivity significantly into question. (Emphasis added.)
Among Booz Allen’s senior consulting staff are several former members of the intelligence community, including a former Director of the CIA and a former director of the NSA.
As noted by Barry Steinhardt, an ACLU director, “It’s bad enough that the [Bush] administration is trying to hold out a private company as a substitute for genuine checks and balances on its surveillance activities. But of all companies to perform audits on a secret surveillance program, it would be difficult to find one less objective and more intertwined with the U.S. government security establishment.” (Emphasis added.)
CONTINUED w Links n Privatized INTEL...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15696-behind-the-curtain-booz-allen-hamilton-and-its-owner-the-carlyle-group
PS: Congratulations! Over 2,000 posts, already! And to think you did it in just 91 days. Awesome.
Oh man, you crack me up with that stuff!
Here's something I know: The facts show the nation's mass media are manipulated by CIA. Here's how CIA got its media ducks in a row regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy:
CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.
CIA Instructions to Media Assets
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with (?)and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.
e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. (Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.)
f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
SOURCE: http://www.boston.com/community/forums/news/national/general/cia-instructions-to-media-assets-doc-1035-960/80/6210620
From 2003, first OP on DU I could find on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x765619
That is very important, considering George H. W. Bush was in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. Something else that is telling, Bush reported to the FBI he heard someone talk of killing President Kennedy, yet he waited to report it until after he was sure President Kennedy was deceased.
So, when you can't argue the facts, the instructions call for an attack on the messenger.
Hey! What a co-incidence.
Besides, I am free to post anytime and anywhere I wish, about anything I wish, including the Bush Family Evil Empire, as long as it's within TOS. Which is why I am trying to help you learn about what Bartcop termed the BFEE, or what I also call the War Party.
Those who are interested in learning about the BFEE: They are the banksters and warmongers who, no matter how gross their treason and criminality, somehow avoid prosecution.
It has me
Octafish, this is so sad watching the NSA apologists make fools of themselves. All have been totally destroyed in this thread to the tune of, "what evidence" when shown 100 links to actual sources...
Wow...just wow...
Few today remember a most heinous terrorist act: The assassinations of former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier and American Ronnie Karpen Moffit.
Ms. Moffit was an American citizen murdered by agents of a foreign government on U.S. soil. Her only crime was being with Orlando Letelier, whose crime was to speak out against the military coup that toppled the democratically elected Chilean government he served. Because he refused to turn over the Chilean secret police and their American contacts, these assassinations were allowed, if not sanctioned, by George Bush, then director of central intelligence and head of the CIA.
As with all things having to do with the BFEE, the world get worse. So, a reminder:
October will mark the 30th anniversary of another most heinous terrorist act: The bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner that killed 73 passengers and crew. The pilots reported the blast caused their aircraft to catch fire and they were burning up as they attempted an emergency landing. The plane crashed into the Caribbean, a few miles west of Barbados. All aboard perished, including a close friend of the Great DUer malaise.
Cubana Airlines DC-8 like the one bombed by BFEE members Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch. Both turds have been protected by Poppy and Baby Doc Bush and the CIA, which strangely has been loyal to them rather than to various presidencies before and in-between.
Here’s an excellent essay based on the facts:
The Charmed Life of a Mass Murderer
Posada Carriles and Bush's Anti-Terror Hoax
By SAUL LANDAU
Counterpunch June 9, 2005
President George W. Bush has emphasized that if one of the myriad of U.S. police agencies even suspect someone of planning, abetting or carrying out a terrorist act, he will, at a minimum, get tossed into a dark hole. Indeed, Bush has thrown the Magna Carta into the garbage heap when it comes to Muslims suspected of pernicious thoughts toward the United States.
But if suspected terrorists turn their rage toward the detested Fidel Castro, these rules don't apply.
Indeed, those who try to bomb Cuban targets, or those related to Cuba, receive special treatment. This double-standard casts a shadow over the president's commitment to fight terrorism.
For example, TV footage showed Homeland Security cops arresting Posada in mid May. But the arresting officers didn't even handcuff the Western Hemisphere's most notorious terrorist. (Remember how Bush's pal Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay ENRON's CEO got handcuffed?) Justice Department spokespeople said they plan to charge the foremost terrorist in the western hemisphere with "illegal entry into the United States."
The FBI has reams of files on Posada, affectionately called "Bambi" by his terrorist friends. Former FBI Special Agent Carter Cornick told New York Times reporter Tim Weiner that Posada was "up to his eyeballs" in the October 1976 destruction of a Cuban commercial airliner over Barbados. All 73 passengers and crew members died. Recently published FBI and CIA documents not only confirm Cornick's statement, but also reveal that U.S. agencies had knowledge of the plot and did not inform Cuban authorities or try to stop the bombing.
SNIP…
One wonders: Did Posada announce his illegal presence in the United States with the idea that U.S. government complicity in aiding and abetting his past acts of terrorism would protect him? U.S. authorities didn't inform Cuba or try to stop the 1976 air-bombing plot, and in 1971, as Veciana stated, the CIA made the gun that Posada's agents placed inside the camera to assassinate Castro. And Ollie North has knowledge of Posada's covert activities for U.S. intelligence as well.
CONTINUED…
http://www.counterpunch.org/landau06092005.html
[font color="red"]What ties these two events together is the involvement of George Herbert Walker Bush, as then-CIA director, in their cover-up as crimes and in the protection of their perpetrators, as in the person of one Luis Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch and their colleagues-in-terror.[/font color]
Think about it: A murder-forgiving CIA director Bush went on to become President of the United States. Today, Bush’s son, George, acts as president. The younger Bush has used his office from Day One to protect and cover-up the crimes of his father.
That’s what Hugo Chavez was talking about when he smelled the sulfur and called Bush “The Devil.”
America needs to wake up and smell the sulfur, too. Here’s some background on the above:
LUIS POSADA CARRILES
THE DECLASSIFIED RECORD
CIA and FBI Documents Detail Career in International Terrorism; Connection to U.S.
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 153
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153 /
Don’t forget to check out Orlando Bosch, while you’re at it. GOOGLE with Jeb Bush for some interesting connections to the present day.
Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez interviewed National Security Archive’s Peter Kornbluh and Letelier’s son, Francisco:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/21/153...
Another important point to remember, is Kissinger's close association with Operation CONDOR, the assassination program run out of "The Cone" to silence democrats, liberals, union leaders, progressives, socialists, communists or anyone who stood for justice and equality.
Chile security chief was CIA informer
BBC Tuesday, 19 September, 2000, 23:24 GMT 00:24 UK
Recently declassified documents in the United States show that the former head of the secret police in Chile, Manuel Contreras, was a paid informant for the US intelligence agency, the CIA.
The report, comprising CIA documents requested by the US Congress, show that contact with Contreras began in 1974 - a year after the military coup that brought General Augusto Pinochet to power.
Contreras oversaw the much-feared security service DINA
The report adds that the contact was maintained until 1977 - a year after Contreras plotted the killing of the then Chilean Foreign Minister and foe of General Pinochet, Orlando Letelier, in Washington.
A BBC correspondent in Washington, Nick Bryant, says the documents reinforce the view that the US turned a blind eye towards political repression in Chile during the Pinochet era and that the CIA was complicit in many human rights abuses.
Pinochet's confidant
As head of the security service, DINA, Contreras became the one of the most feared men in Chile, second only to General Pinochet.
The general's iron rule was underpinned by the tactics of brutal repression that saw thousands die and thousands more flee into exile. Others disappeared or were tortured.
CONTINUED…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/932897.stm
Of course, there are even more sulferous friends than these…
Bush's Longstanding Criminal Mexican Amigos
The disturbing ties of some of George W. Bush's Latino advisors
More on Bush-Amigos links in PBS Frontline interview with Gary Jacobs
By Julie Reynolds
Research assistance by Victor Almazán and Ana Leonor Rojo
LOS AMIGOS DE BUSH
“Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres. (Tell me who you side with and I will tell you who you are.)” – “George W. Bush for President” web site
Those who say that George W. Bush has scant knowledge of foreign affairs don't understand his family's relationship with Mexico.
If one event could be said to make that relationship visible, it had to be the state dinner given eleven years ago by President Bush for Mexico's president, Carlos Salinas. It was an elegant yet boisterous gala, where the biggest movers and shakers in Texas and Mexico congregated and celebrated. This group was to become W's Mexican legacy, a gift of ties and connections passed on from the father to his son.
SNIP…
The Mexican president had spent a long day with President Bush signing trade pacts, the precursors of NAFTA. Salinas brought his so-called Dream Team: his commerce secretary, finance minister, and his personal Machiavelli, Jose Córdoba. It would later be astounding to see, as the decade unfolded, how many of that administration's proud men and women fell shamefully from grace - some exiled, some imprisoned and some assassinated.
No one knew it then, but many at that banquet would survive to one day help young W beat a path back to the White House. There were loyal "Bushfellas" who were old friends of the family: Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher Sr., General Colin Powell, and George Bush Senior's ever-present friend, Secretary of State James Baker. Gary Jacobs, whose Texas bank was about to be bought by the son of Mexico's billionaire-politico Carlos Hank González, was also a guest. Tony Garza, then a young judge, is now a Bush cabinet contender. Today, all are advisors or contributors to W's campaign.
Hidden among the glitterati were two relative unknowns. They were, however, familiar to the group at hand. They were the loyal "Amigos de Bush" from San Antonio: criminal defense lawyer Roy Barrera Jr. and car dealer Ernesto Ancira Jr. In contrast to the Salinas group, the ties of Barrera and Ancira to drug cartels would remain unnoticed for another decade. Their ties to George W. would grow stronger.
CONTINUED…
http://www.elandar.com/bush/amigos.html
Henry Kissinger and Agusto Pinochet
“I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.” -- Henry A. Kissinger
Remember: If the guy W wanted to appoint head of the 9-11 Commission feels that way about democracy in Chile, what’s there to make us think he and those for whom he toils believe differently about democracy in the United States of America?
PS: Does the fact you have to read the words on the title disqualify hypocrisy?
Claims that the ELDER Bush had anything at all to do with the assassination of JFK are beyiond the pale into the most ridiculous CT idiocy possible.
had anything to do with Hitler's rise. And Smedley Butler made it all up right?
Ignorance is bliss to some I guess.
because others may have did it. got it.
Oh.
You're trying to put words in my mouth.
I get it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
You asserted that they wouldn't find any. Now they are classified.
... as opposed to the speculation favoured by the Snowden fans.
How could anyone believe that any employee would never have sent ANY emails during the course of their employment? Surely there would be many just dealing with mundane matters, such as vacation scheduling, the timing of upcoming meetings, etc.
And yet there seem to be some here who honestly believe that the NSA confirmed that they did not receive a SINGLE email from Snowden - ever.
Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)
Now my replies on a message board enable traitors to get away with war for profit, etc.
I don't know which is the more appropriate response, or
Unless you're talking about taking a poll asking strippers, perhaps on how much they appreciate their working conditions or the impact of NSA spying on their clients' wives. Cough. Eliot Spitzer in STELLAR flipping WIND, per my good friend Wayne Madsen in 2009. Or punctuation. That?
ETA question mark... .. .. . . . .. .. .... .. . . .. Rex!
let us talk about it and not the NSA spying on everyone taking a poop.
