Posted on 06/07/2017 1:03:22 PM PDT by deplorableindc
Privacy advocates and journalists want to know what Sen. Ron Wyden is up to -- and whether the Oregon Democrat elicited another lie about surveillance from a director of national intelligence during Wednesday's Senate intelligence committee hearing.
Wyden asked one of the final questions at the hearing that dealt with the investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election and with Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expires later this year if Congress does not act.
Wyden, a forceful privacy advocate, asked Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, with whom he had sparred earlier, a simple standalone question: “Can the government use FISA Act Section 702 to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic?”
Coats replied: “Not to my knowledge. It would be against the law.”
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
“”Wyden knows something that we don’t know and he was trying to get Coats on the record about whatever this thing is,” says Liza Goitein, a privacy expert at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.”
Oh yea. And when he gets Coats ‘on the record’ he’s going to go after him on perjury charges, like what happened to Clapper. /sarc
> “Not to my knowledge. It would be against the law.”
My next question
“How many lawyers do you have who’s job is to find ways around the intent of the law while being able to claim adherence to the letter of the law?”
All of them.
Grandstanding
“entirely domestic”
99,999 out of 100,000 is not entirely domestic.
1 heartbeat every 60 seconds is not entirely dead either. But it's close enough to call it.
Hair-splitting is so unbecoming.
“Hair-splitting is so unbecoming.”
I agree, but how many times have Clinton and the Democrats gotten away with it?
"Not to my knowledge." That's so lame and a non-answer to the question.
I don't believe anything these people say. Their job is to lie.
Wyden is very liberal, but he is very good on invasion of privacy issues. He’s almost a libertarian on this subject.
Can somebody enlighten me on why Wyden is going after Coats, who was only confirmed a month ago? If Wyden has specific abuses in mind, they would likely have occurred under Clapper and Obama, not Coats.
Wyden may appear to be a privacy advocate, but nothing happened when he caught Clapper in a series of lies. And we know from the declassified FISA court briefings that serial abuse of privacy “hundreds” in the words of the 3 SCOTUS Justices on FISC — occurred entirely during the watch of Mr. Comey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.