Sorry, but your friends are idiots. People who do not listen to talk radio AND peruse the web, AND watch some cable TV news are simpletons. Rather than try to help them ... ridicule them. If they don't shape up tell them you really can't have such jerks in your life and walk away.
What if they're members of your family? LOL.
1. My experience with staffers is that they sometimes try to "steer" the issue; this could have been the case when those involved in ABLE DANGER came forward to the 9/11 commission. This does not excuse them.
2. There are reports that LTC Schaffer was the subject of fradulent travel claims or phone bills - he may have been, but this would not be in the news if someone wanted him silenced. He was also a reveered case officer from what I have been told; and thoght out of the box.
3. ABLE DANGER used the same technology as CIFA (Counterintelligence Field Activity) and when congressional staffers came into that space, an analyst said "give me a name" for a demonstration. A staffer said "Chu" (to see what would happen) and the the analyst plugged that name in. The result of the name "Chu" was that the technology involved spewed out connections between someone named "Chu" and Pres Clinton. A copy of that report was requested; the analyst stupidly acquieced; the congressional staffer took it to the hill and it was released that Clinton had ties to the Chinese.
That technology was then shut down, to include ABLE DANGER and CIFA (formerly JCAG - which used the same technology). The Clinton administration was incensed and we lost all capability to track foreigners in our homeland.
Then you add Jamie Gorelick to the mix who wanted to preclude any technology or processes to allow those with that technology to provide info on people in America that wanted to destroy us from within to be provided by the U.S. military to law enforcement. Now, what do you all think is wrong with this picture??
Jamie Gorelich was sitting on the wrong side of the table in the Senate 9/11 hearings; and what was Sandy Berger REALLY doing n the archives??
Food for thought. . . . . .