Oh yes! The perfect cover! He'll play a whistleblower in public (for... no clear purpose?) and give the Russians the really good stuff!

Didn't you make a wild accusation about Snowden the last time you posted on this subject and then disappear when I asked for a citation?

it was brilliant to exclude iraq, makes it easier for ISIS to attack. Then they get to drop the hammer on the final nail in the democrat coffin.

Who's even left by the time they come for "white dudes that once claimed on the internet to have voted for a Democrat"? "Social liberal" my ass, you are a garden variety deplorable and have vindicated everything we always said about you.

But to a bunch of people's point: Greenwald's critiques seem to veer far from "structural criticism of American surveillance" into a crusade against establishment Democrats. Which again I think is partly merited but not quite what you're describing either.

Jman is right on the description of how a tap on a land line would take place. Monitoring a cell is more tricky but also follows a similar procedure.

Also, it's also possible to monitor conversations without involving the phone company, which the NSA has clearly done. As I said earlier there are also devices that can be aimed at windows and other surfaces that can pick up entire conversations from the vibrations.

Point being, I wouldn't be surprised if the IC has more **** on Trump than even just the Russia connections. I mean, the guy's been involved in shady stuff ranging from illegal casino operations to money laundering to insider trading, with everything in between. Can't even imagine what's going to happen when it starts getting released.

Being anti snowden is another of those handy signals that a person can be wholly ignored on every topic.

It was probably partly brilliant because tons of Vox explainer and other short-sighted liberals are going to pen lengthy articles today about how Trump is showing very bad wisdom here because actually all the dangerous people really come from Iraq.

They still need 90 days to assess and improve vetting procedures, what's it been since the first muslim ban? 40 days? Apparently they took those to days off. Our spent them at mar-a-Lago

This take is bull; snowden is a dumbass IT guy who got access to **** he shouldn't have and released it knowing it would harm america. When he did that he was a russian asset at least figuratively.

Much less draconian now, as it excludes people who have visas and green cards. Iraq excluded since they're the only country that has actual leverage over the US government.

But CBP can read between the lines on this. They already do basically whatever they want, they never fully stopped enforcing the previous travel ban, and they know to do now.

meanwhile in real news

everyone's favorite guy in charge of ethics investigations Jason Chaffetz basically stated he's willing to do **** ton of investigations into the obama wiretapping claim meanwhile nothing about russia WAAF.

The reflexive need of establishment centrists to accept premises and argue from those premises to show hypocrisy or something is literally going to cause the downfall of the republic. I blame debate clubs.

"Democrats do it too" is a structural critique, though, even if it's the whinyest, most petulant way possible to make that critique.

The liberals will find a way to trash the new travel ban because it excludes Iraq.

I've already written Vox's post from later this afternoon on this:

At that point I'll close the tab and throw my mouse against the wall. JUST CALL IT RACIST FASCIST DRIVEL FFS.

One of the huge hidden advantages the right-wing has is that by being a bunch of fact free imbeciles, they've sort of gleefully dismissed any of the frivolities that liberals just revel in. The sort of banal trivial stuff which ultimately serves to distract and confuse everyone. I don't want to pick on Vox but they're sort of the worst elements of fiddling about on pointless minutiae and missing the truth and the actual facts of the story, despite the reason for their stated existence is to dispense with facts and get right down to explanations. Trump travel's ban is easily distilled into like a sentence or two of explanation: racist cowards are engaged in legislative pageantry to satisfy the resentments of angry whites. That's it, not much more to it. Maybe a few more sentences but not beyond that. Vox will not tell you that, and instead tell you how it's a great irony that low-income Trump voters who think they want the travel ban will actually be harmed because now their immigrant dentist might not be able to get here and tell them to stop drinking Mountain Dew; their colleague just published a study about how cavities and gingivitis in Trump-voting counties are skyrocketing.

I'm not advocating that all journalists become advocacy journalists but at some point, deploying the wrong set of empiricism is just a distraction from the real story, the one journalists owe their readers.

On a scale of 1 to this:



how happy are you that Syrian refugee families, who were vetted and lined up to come to the US, now have to stay indefinitely in a hell that the US helped create?

Exactly. This is what these people have meant for decades when they say "America."

Some have acquaintances who don't fit the description, but those are "the good ones."

People like awval have the generosity to not show open contempt to the faces of "the good ones" but you people want to ignore all of that and call them bigots.

Good article: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2...medium=twitter

Not just upset, but apparently madder than he's ever been. Seems he's quite nervous about any non-Sessions -led investigation.

Nah dude, it wasn't extreme vetting because He says we need extreme vetting. How could we need something we already have?

There's no need to read about the vetting process when He will tell you everything you need to know.

And the 90-day clock that will totally start any day now will be all that He needs to figure out the new vetting process, because He is a brilliant businessman with a skeleton crew of 2 or 3 advisors because policy wonks are inefficient, and besides, if He appoints more people, congress will just obstruct them, as they have done to Him so far.

Nice virtue-signalling libtard. Here's a flippant nonsensical response.

GG is an irrelevant attention whore. Nobody outside of well educated liberals gives a flying **** about him and/or his hypocrisy.

Nah, the travel ban revision is slightly less terrible in practice (but no less unconstitutional) because of leaving Iraq off the list.

No, but the righties will find ways to justify it even though they make no sense, just so that they can keep people with dark skin and funny names out of 'their' country.