+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 42

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Hello People,

    Well, it looks like we were all in a tizzy for nothing. :rolleyes:

    Unwarranted Outrage

    DeeDee1965

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Assuming the interpretation of the law is accurate, and I say that only because I have not tried to read through the quoted law, it appears the White House was not breaking any laws.

    Very good investigation on your part DeeDee. I wonder if we can find any others to back up this claim?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    reg, welcome to the "1000 posts" club. Well, at least on your next one

    :D

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Thank you Grim.....I hadn't even noticed....I used the milestone to reply to Dante, like that was worth it.....lol

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Oh, by the way DeeDee, great find. If the writers interpretations are accurate, then it looks like it is just another in a long line of liberal BS stories that are designed to "surprise surprise", discredit the Bush administration and draw away attention from the successful elections in Iraq.

    .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    Oh, by the way DeeDee, great find. If the writers interpretations are accurate, then it looks like it is just another in a long line of liberal BS stories that are designed to "surprise surprise", discredit the Bush administration and draw away attention from the successful elections in Iraq.

    .
    Oh you and your liberal this and liberal that. As I recall when the story broke originally, there wasn't much question of tapping people's phone on international calls but there was CONCERN, not accusation, that it would eventually extend to listening to domestic calls without warrant. Yes, some took it and ran with it, even the nuetral stations ran with it Grim, you know, those that have no bias? ;)

    Still, all in all, it's wise to take care with your words. In email and over the phone. Big Brother has probably been monitoring communications for years without our knowledge anyway. We are just little fish in a great big pond though.

    Lady Mod

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Quote from AP story:

    "Despite the defense, there was a growing storm of criticism in Congress and calls for investigations, from Democrats and Republicans alike. Until the past several days, the White House had only informed Congress’ top political and intelligence committee leadership about the program that Bush has reauthorized more than three dozen times."

    Looks like he did in fact fulfill the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Hard to argue against following the law. To reauthorize 3 dozen times in four years (thats 36 times or once every 40 days) definitely fits the requirement of briefing the committees at least once every 6 months.

    Still another quote from the AP story:

    "Rockefeller is among a small group of congressional leaders who have received briefings on the administration’s four-year-old program to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.

    The government still would seek court approval to snoop on purely domestic communications, such as calls between New York and Los Angeles."

    No need to fear the domestic wire tapping yet, NSA is still getting warrantes for those.

    It does look like in this article there are some sour grapes from Congress people who where not in the loop. It also looks like the program has scared a few of those that new about it to the point they want to distance themselves.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    622

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    Assuming the interpretation of the law is accurate, and I say that only because I have not tried to read through the quoted law, it appears the White House was not breaking any laws.

    Very good investigation on your part DeeDee. I wonder if we can find any others to back up this claim?
    In other words: "It appears you're correct because I just can't bear to discover that I'm a naive fool (which is what might happen if I actually tried to read the statute) and will slavishly believe anything the fascist regime of Der Furer, Bush, espouses."

    The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction," according to the law.

    For anyone interested the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is here.

    Violations of the law carry criminal penalties and civil liability. The criminal sanctions are as follows:

    (a) Prohibited activities

    A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally---

    (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

    (2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

    (b) Defense

    It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

    (c) Penalties

    An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

    The potential civil liability is as follows:

    An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover--

    (a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater;

    (b) punitive damages; and

    (c) reasonable attorney's fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.

    Potentially thousands of Americans have claims for three years at $100 per day, or a maximum of about $110,000 each. I do wonder what the discovery rules are for those lawsuits.
    Last edited by dante; 12-20-2005 at 11:20 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    Oh you and your liberal this and liberal that. As I recall when the story broke originally, there wasn't much question of tapping people's phone on international calls but there was CONCERN, not accusation, that it would eventually extend to listening to domestic calls without warrant. Yes, some took it and ran with it, even the nuetral stations ran with it Grim, you know, those that have no bias? ;)

    Still, all in all, it's wise to take care with your words. In email and over the phone. Big Brother has probably been monitoring communications for years without our knowledge anyway. We are just little fish in a great big pond though.

    Lady Mod

    Yes but Lady mod, it was the NY Times that published this story that they say they were sitting on for a year. They are the ones that didn't bother to investigate the actual law, like the writer in DeeDee's post did. They are also the ones who chose to make this front page news when the successful elections in Iraq were front page everywhere else. Also, explain to me why they didn't bother to tell anyone that the source for the information was coming out with an Anti-Bush book in a few weeks?

    This story has the stench of anti-Bush/liberal bias that could only come from the NY Times.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Well People,

    The plot thickens. :rolleyes: What could this mean, pray tell.

    DeeDee1965
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Bush’s Snoopgate

    The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security.

    WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
    By Jonathan Alter
    Newsweek
    Updated: 6:17 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2005


    Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

    No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
    but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.

    The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

    No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

    What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action.

    This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.

    In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.

    This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

    © 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

    © 2005 MSNBC.com

    URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    One thing it might mean DeeDee is that King George might find out that the law applies to him too.


    Yesterday, I issued the following release about President Bush's recent admission that he has personally authorized domestic surveillance without a court order. I sent the referenced letter to four presidential scholars, asking for their input:

    Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago Law School
    Bruce Ackerman, Yale University
    Susan Low Bloch, Georgetown University Law Center
    Michael Gerhardt, College of William and Mary School of Law
    I hope you'll take a moment to read my statement below, and then forward this email to everyone you know.

    In Friendship,




    Barbara Boxer



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Boxer Asks Presidential Scholars About Former White House Counsel's Statement that Bush Admitted to an 'Impeachable Offense'

    December 19, 2005

    Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean's statement that President Bush admitted to an "impeachable offense" when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

    Boxer said, "I take very seriously Mr. Dean's comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future."

    Boxer's letter is as follows:

    On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

    On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon's counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

    This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

    Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean's statement.

    Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

    Sincerely,

    Barbara Boxer
    United States Senator

    # # #

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Hi Baridi,

    I thought for a minute, he got away with it again. Maybe, just maybe, he will not be able to walk from this particular grab for imperial power.

    I saw the post you have in your reply. Now if everyone can just close their eyes and pray real hard, we might just get a miracle. ;)

    DeeDee1965

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    622

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Hi Baridi,

    I thought for a minute, he got away with it again. Maybe, just maybe, he will not be able to walk from this particular grab for imperial power.

    I saw the post you have in your reply. Now if everyone can just close their eyes and pray real hard, we might just get a miracle. ;)

    DeeDee1965
    Actually, it's time for some people to open their eyes.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Quote Originally Posted by dante
    In other words: "It appears you're correct because I just can't bear to discover that I'm a naive fool (which is what might happen if I actually tried to read the statute) and will slavishly believe anything the fascist regime of Der Furer, Bush, espouses."

    The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction," according to the law.

    For anyone interested the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is here.

    Violations of the law carry criminal penalties and civil liability. The criminal sanctions are as follows:

    (a) Prohibited activities

    A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally---

    (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

    (2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

    (b) Defense

    It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

    (c) Penalties

    An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

    The potential civil liability is as follows:

    An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover--

    (a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater;

    (b) punitive damages; and

    (c) reasonable attorney's fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.

    Potentially thousands of Americans have claims for three years at $100 per day, or a maximum of about $110,000 each. I do wonder what the discovery rules are for those lawsuits.

    Dante and anyone interested.

    While you point out the penalty portion of the law, in an attempt to prove the law was broken, it doesn't do a darn thing to prove your case. Laws have a penalty section built into them in case they are broken, but simply because they have this clause does not prove someone broke them.

    The links take you directly tot he law if you are interested in reading it.

    TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > � 1802 Click the link to read it completely.

    � 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

    Refers to � 1801. Definitions

    (a) �Foreign power� means�
    (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
    (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
    (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
    (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
    (5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
    (6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.

    (b) �Agent of a foreign power� means�

    (1) any person other than a United States person, who�
    (A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
    (B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person�s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or

    (2) any person who�

    (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
    (B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
    (C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
    (D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
    (E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    622

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    Dante and anyone interested.

    While you point out the penalty portion of the law, in an attempt to prove the law was broken, it doesn't do a darn thing to prove your case. Laws have a penalty section built into them in case they are broken, but simply because they have this clause does not prove someone broke them.

    The links take you directly tot he law if you are interested in reading it.

    TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > � 1802 Click the link to read it completely.

    � 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

    Refers to � 1801. Definitions

    (a) �Foreign power� means�
    (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
    (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
    (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
    (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
    (5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
    (6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.

    (b) �Agent of a foreign power� means�

    (1) any person other than a United States person, who�
    (A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
    (B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person�s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or

    (2) any person who�

    (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
    (B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
    (C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
    (D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
    (E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
    I cited the overall statute correctly. You are citing a subchapter.

    (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
    (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
    (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
    (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

    [And]there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;


    What part of exclusively between / under control of a foreign power don't you get?
    Last edited by dante; 12-21-2005 at 06:45 AM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: It Looks Like the Wiretapping was LEGAL!!

    Dante you and I can point to the same text (as we are) and you are going to interpret it to suit your desires and I am going to read it to include terrorist organizations and people supporting them because I believe that was the intent of the law.

    I believe the counsel for the White House is most likely much better informed on the law and its meaning as determined by the courts then you or I will. So let's see if this ends up in court. If it does...and Bush in convicted....you will be proven correct. If not, then the rest of us will be proven correct.

    I will come back and give you props for coming to the proper conclusion. Are you willing to do the same?

Similar Threads

  1. Intelligence Court Rules Wiretapping Power Legal
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-15-2009, 10:45 PM
  2. Computer Wiretapping Galore Starts Now
    By Americanadian in forum Government Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 10:37 AM
  3. Communist Dictator Mugabe: A Big Fan Of Bush's Wiretapping Program
    By BVR USA Liaison in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-14-2007, 05:02 AM
  4. Computer Wiretapping Galore Starts Now
    By Americanadian in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-26-2007, 04:37 AM
  5. Computer Wiretapping Galore Starts Now
    By Americanadian in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-25-2007, 11:15 AM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
$100, 000, accurate, accusation, act, action, actions, acts, address, administration, admit, admitted, advent, age, agen, agency, agent, agreed, agreement, al qaeda, alive, allowing, america, american, angeles, animal, another, answer, anti, appeared, appears, applause, approval, approve, approved, april, arthur, article, ation, attacks, attention, attorney, attorney general, authority, authorization, authorized, authorizes, avoid, aware, bad, balance, based, bay, behalf, bet, better, big brother, biggest, bin, bit, blame, blood, blue, book, brain, breaker, breaking, bring, broke, broken, brother, built, called, calling, calls, campaign, cannot, captured, care, carrier, carry, case, catch, caught, caused, cell, center, cer, chapters, chase, che, cheney, chicago, chief, citi, citizens, civil, claim, claims, cli, click, clinto, close, club, collect, college, coming, comments, commit, common, communication, comparison, compensation, complete, completely, con, concerns, condi, confirmed, congressional, conservative, conservatives, continues, conversation, core, correct, costs, couldn, country, court, court order, courts, credible, credit, criminal, cuba, current, dan, dar, darn, day, days, dea, dean, december, decision, defeat, definition, democrats, department, des, described, desire, desperate, destroyed, dick, didn, difficult, direction, director, discover, discussing, doctors, doesn, don, dow, dozen, drug, duc, ear, earlier, earth, edward, elec, electio, eme, employee, ended, ends, enemy, enter, entire, eric, error, event, examples, exclusive, executive order, exo, expert, experts, extra, eyes, faith, fall, false, famous, fault, fear, fed, federal, fee, feel, felt, fine, fisa, fits, five, focus, fool, forbes, foreign, forget, forward, fraudulent, friday, friendship, front, fully, future, gain, gave, general, george, george w. bush, girl, giving, gli, glitches, good, government, grab, gray, great, greater, griffin, grim, group, growing, guy, guys, had, hand, handles, hard, heads, held, helping, hey, highly, his, homeland, hours, house, housing, html, ial, ica, identity, ill, imagine, ime, impeached, impeachment, important, include, individuals, information, insulted, intelligence, inter, intercept, interest, interested, international, interview, investigation, investigations, investigative, involving, ion, issue, issues, john, jonathan, judge, judiciary, judy, justify, kennedy, kind, knew, lady, last, law, lawmakers, lawsuits, leads, legal, legally, letter, liberal, liberals, liberty, license, lincoln, line, links, lis, listen, logistics, lol, long, los, mad, mail, mails, making, man., mass, matter, mea, meaning, medical, meeting, member, members, men, milestone, mind, minutes, moment, monitoring, more, morris, msnbc, muscle, mystery, nam, nation, national, national security, nations, need, needed, ner, network, networks, new york times, nixon, nose, notification, oath, office, official, officials, only, open, order, ordered, orders, organization, organizations, outrage, page, pakistan, part, party, pas, patriot, peace, permanent, person, personally, persons, physical, picture, piece, pigs, place, play, point, policy, por, pos, position, post, posted, posters, posts, potential, power, pray, presiden, presidency, prevent, prior, process, projects, property, prosecuted, protect, protection, prove, proven, public, published, punish, purely, pursuit, question, questions, quote, rage, ranking, read, real, reason, reasonable, received, recover, regime, relax, release, released, releases, religious, reporters, reporting, reports, represent, response, responsible, rest, retired, revelation, revelations, ria, richard, rio, rise, robert, role, route, run, sabo, sanctions, sca, scared, scholars, script, search, seattle, section, seem, select, sen, senate, senators, sending, sense, service, services, set, sex, sexual, sharing, shoo, shooting, shouldn, show, showed, signed, simply, site, small, sometimes, soo, sour, source, sources, speaking, star, stars, start, starting, stated, states, stein, stop, stories, story, subs, successful, sul, sunday, supporting, supports, supreme, supreme court, surveillance, system, tactics, taken, taking, talk, talking, talks, targets, ted, terror, terrorist, text, the new york times, they, thought, thread, throw, ties, time, times, tired, title, today, told, tone, top, tor, total, totally, tough, tribute, trouble, trumped, tuesday, types, u.s. government, under oath, uni, union, united, united states, unprecedented, update, url, usa, uses, van, view, viewpoint, viola, violated, viole, violent, vital, wanted, wars, waste, ways, week, weeks, welcome, wire, wise, words, work, worth, writing, wrong, www, year, years, yesterday, ymi, york

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •