3 ms·

I started a blog a while back because I do not expect this long-running story of freedom and privacy to move in a straight line from point A to point B. As this

I started a blog a while back because I do not expect this long-running story of freedom and privacy to move in a straight line from point A to point B. As this story shows, there'll be a lot of steps forward, then a couple of steps back. It's something that will require chronicling. I won't debate the veracity of Congressman's Nadler's comments either a couple of days ago or today. I'll just assume his first comments were correct and unguarded. (They say the definition of a gaffe is when somebody in Washington DC tells the truth) What interests me is this: who got to him? We'd all like to assume it was some kind of nefarious government source, but my instincts say it was somebody in a leadership position in his own party. We won't know, though, either which statement was correct, and if the first one was true, how he was "adjusted" by some external force. Bet it's a fascinating story. My money says leadership in both parties are really busy cracking the whip over this behind the scenes.

rtpg 13y ago
If you actually look at the CSPAN segment upon which the piece is gased, you can see that there is legitimate confusion between the FBI Director and the Congressman during the exchange. That could have been a ruse, or the Congressman could have legitimately misunderstood something previously, and thus tried to clear everything up after it blew up. Not everything is a fucking conspiracy.
- DanielBMarkham 13y ago
  The story I read said that Nadler received one answer one day, and another answer during the closed-door, classified briefing. Didn't know they put those things on CSPAN. And nobody's implying a conspiracy. I specifically said as much. My point was that leadership had a vested interest in keeping the troops marching in line -- much more than with your normal poicy issues. Also that the Nadler thing is a tiny piece of a much larger tapestry. Doesn't matter much one way or the other how this specific story turns out. I was just assuming his first words were accurate for purposes of having a starting point in the discussion.
  - eli 13y ago
    I agree that the Nadler thing is a small part of this whole news event... but it was pretty much the entirety of the CNET piece. It is no longer fair to say the NSA "admitted" to listening to the contents of phone calls. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but there's no evidence they admitted it.

rtpg 13y ago

If you actually look at the CSPAN segment upon which the piece is gased, you can see that there is legitimate confusion between the FBI Director and the Congressman during the exchange. That could have been a ruse, or the Congressman could have legitimately misunderstood something previously, and thus tried to clear everything up after it blew up. Not everything is a fucking conspiracy.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago
The story I read said that Nadler received one answer one day, and another answer during the closed-door, classified briefing. Didn't know they put those things on CSPAN. And nobody's implying a conspiracy. I specifically said as much. My point was that leadership had a vested interest in keeping the troops marching in line -- much more than with your normal poicy issues. Also that the Nadler thing is a tiny piece of a much larger tapestry. Doesn't matter much one way or the other how this specific story turns out. I was just assuming his first words were accurate for purposes of having a starting point in the discussion.
- eli 13y ago
  I agree that the Nadler thing is a small part of this whole news event... but it was pretty much the entirety of the CNET piece. It is no longer fair to say the NSA "admitted" to listening to the contents of phone calls. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but there's no evidence they admitted it.