“”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?”
Grandstanding
“entirely domestic”
99,999 out of 100,000 is not entirely domestic.
"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.