No. I think you're right and that there isn't enough to substantiate this story for a mainstream publication relying on two-source verification to risk publishi

No. I think you're right and that there isn't enough to substantiate this story for a mainstream publication relying on two-source verification to risk publishing it. This is why I agreed off-the-bat that it might be disinformation. That said, given that Tice has at least some credibility on this front, I also think these allegations should cast suspicion on claims you have made that there is reasonable judicial oversight of America's public security apparati, a belief you have used to cast suspicion on statements from whistleblowers like Snowden whom you have attacked in the past. And it's entirely possible I'm reading too much into your comments (in which case I apologize). But if that's the case, an easy way to avoid it would be countering your public statements that are critical of whistleblowers with the occasional statement clarifying your personal belief in the legality or morality of the actions which they allege are taking place. A statement expressing your belief that surveillance should only occur after probable cause and with specific judicial oversight would put me, and I suspect the others upvoting my comments, much more at ease.