Senator Accuses CIA of Snooping On Intelligence Committee Computers

An anonymous reader writes "Sen. Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, publicly accused the CIA of inappropriately searching computers used by her committee, violating presidential directives, federal laws and the Fourth Amendment. The computers in question were provided by the CIA at an undisclosed CIA location for use by the members of the intelligence committee. When the committee staff received internal documents the CIA had not officially provided, the agency examined the computers used by the committee and removed the unauthorized documents. The action has been referred to the Justice Department for possible prosecution." There were rumors of such a few weeks ago, and now it's official. Read the transcript of her speech.

Comments

Are you sure it's not the NSA ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator accuses CIA of hacking into Intelligence Committee Computer --- methinks that Senator knew the real culprit is NSA and not CIA, but he hasn't got the gut to say so.

This is communist accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no snooping on those computers. Real patriots know that.

Re:This is communist accusations

[NotDrWho]

I hope I never live in a world where you can't even trust the CIA to be honest with you.

Re:This is communist accusations

[Jane Q. Public]

"This is communist accusations"

I think it is hilariously ironic that Feinstein was the victim of the very same surveillance state that she so vigorously and enthusiastically helped to create and maintain.

I honestly don't see where she has any room to bitch, without being a hypocrite of the first order.

Re:This is communist accusations

[budgenator]

They (the CIA) gave the Senators the use of CIA computers, access to specified portion of the CIA's classified network and the Senators strayed into an area they shouldn't have and aquired a file they shouldn't have. The CIA quickly discovered the event, and reported to law enforcement; I'd say the NSA could stand to take a few pointers from the CIA.

NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same Senator who crys "terrorists!" whenever people suggest reining in NSA surveillance of regular citizens.

I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon. Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[ISoldat53]

Dianne, petard. Petard, Dianne.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

...because she's callous and domineering? ...because people in this country like that kind of leadership so long as it is hidden behind a fake smile, decorum, and a few ginned up talking points to drool over?

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[Quila]

Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

Because we are the little people and she is the ruling class. We only matter to gain her more power and make her husband more money.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[CanHasDIY]

I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon.

Really? I don't - bitch has no right to privacy regarding her job as a public servant. Now, if they were hacking into her personal email... I still wouldn't feel bad about it. Scumbags reap what they sow.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[DarkOx]

Not only that its the same Senator who argued how necessary to national security the NSA surveillance programs are after the Snowden leaks.

Hypocrisy at its finest; curb stop my constituents 4th amendment rights and thats all fine, but violate my rights and look out!

I'd like to think she might learn something from this, but I doubt she will.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[CauseBy]

To be clear, they are absolutely hacking her personal email, no doubt about it.

I'm willing to feel bad for anyone who gets illegally wiretapped -- except for people like Feinstein who openly call for practically everyone (except her) to be illegally wiretapped. She deserves it; the rest of us don't.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

No one in these so-called security agencies would be happy if we (the citizens) spied on them 24/7. I can only hope that their pervy abuse of this "legal" spying (backed by the George Bush administration) will backfire on them. You reap what you sow.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same Senator who crys "terrorists!" whenever people suggest reining in NSA surveillance of regular citizens.

I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon. Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

It's worse than that - this is a fundamental breakdown of Congressional power that's leading to a dictatorial Presidency.

It's just fine by her when the executive branch unilaterally changes things like statutory Affordable Care Act deadlines, because it suits her political purposes.

It's fine by her to give the DNI a pass when he perjures himself in congressional testimony, because it suits her political purposes.

It's fine by her when the President makes "recess" appointments to the NLRB when the Senate was still legally in session, because it suits her political purposes.

So now, because dolts like Feinstein were all to eager to give the executive branch of the US government a pass when it suited them, we now have an out-of-control Presidency where the President is even PROUD to be out of control - he "has a pen and a phone".

What the hell are you Obama apologists going to do if a Republican becomes President and uses his "pen and ... phone" to gut Obamacare? Why can't he, when Obama himself can change the law unilaterally?

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because she's an idiot. That much is obvious from her complaint, that CIA scanned and removed leaked CIA documents from CIA-provided equipment. This is SOP for any government agency or government contracting agency, in the event of a spillage. She's making a mountain out of a molehill, which would be immediately discounted were it not for the current political climate, and just about everyone here is falling for it.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't. You're a moron.

There are plenty of examples of the erosion of our democratic system and our hard-won rights and privileges, but a government agency cleaning up spillage on government assets is not one of them. There is nothing new or nefarious about this, and every user of GFE gets informed about the caveats of "privacy" on said equipment on at least a yearly basis.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[interkin3tic]

To be fair, she accuses the intelligence community of doing far more than simply spying on her.

said the CIA had searched through computers belonging to staff members investigating the agency’s role in torturing detainees, and had then leveled false charges against her staff in an attempt to intimidate them. “I have grave concerns that the CIA’s search may well have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States Constitution, including the speech and debate clause,” she said. “It may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function.”

From the intercept.

The intelligence community blackmailing the people who are supposed to have oversight of the intelligence community is probably at least a little more dangerous than the intelligence community spying on it's citizens. If for no other reason that the former prevents the latter from being solved. Pruning the CIA and NSA back to appropriate levels will require congressional action, and that's likely exactly what the CIA and/or NSA is trying to stop with these actions.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, she accuses the intelligence community of doing far more than simply spying on her.

said the CIA had searched through computers belonging to staff members investigating the agency’s role in torturing detainees, and had then leveled false charges against her staff in an attempt to intimidate them.

“I have grave concerns that the CIA’s search may well have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States Constitution, including the speech and debate clause,” she said. “It may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function.”

From the intercept.

The intelligence community blackmailing the people who are supposed to have oversight of the intelligence community is probably at least a little more dangerous than the intelligence community spying on it's citizens. If for no other reason that the former prevents the latter from being solved. Pruning the CIA and NSA back to appropriate levels will require congressional action, and that's likely exactly what the CIA and/or NSA is trying to stop with these actions.

Good point. However this illustrates the dangers of allowing the intelligence community spying to spy on citizens as freely as they can now. Who's to say the intelligence community won't start blackmailing or framing citizens that don't meet their political views.

Imagine if J Ed Hoover had the surveillance abilities and rules we have today? Would he been able to destroy Martin Luther King's civil rights movement if he had the ability identify supporters of the movement and find dirt to blackmail them as fast as he would have today?

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[FridayBob]

... Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

Because among the millions of us there may be a few terrorists, so none of us can ever be trusted. She and her colleagues, on the other hand, are fine upstanding citizens who are completely trustworthy and never do anything wrong.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

I must stringly disagree.

Doesn't matter who the f*cking target is.

The NSA being out of control was brought to light by internal NSA leaks. She didn't get why that was a problem. Now she does.

Re:NOW it's a tragedy, NOW it's so sad to see...

[HiThere]

I only disagree when you get to "now she does". I don't believe that to be true. I think she only objects to their spying upon her and her staff. I would be quite happy were she to prove me wrong.

Frist Snowden!

[ArsenneLupin]

... then this!

Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

And she said that the CIA appears to have violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance.

I don't think she even realizes how hypocritical she is. Surveillance and secrecy are all cool, unless they happen to apply to her. Then it is her -- "Fourth Amendment!"

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

The hypocritical Senator's own word, for our enjoyment. Pass the popcorn.

The NSA's Watchfulness Protects America
By Dianne Feinstein
Oct. 13, 2013 6:59 p.m. ET

Since it was exposed in June by leaker Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency's call-records program has become controversial and many have questioned whether its benefits are worth the costs. My answer: The program—which collects phone numbers and the duration and times of calls, but not the content of any conversations, names or locations—is necessary and must be preserved if we are to prevent terrorist attacks.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Continue NSA call-records program
By Dianne Feinstein
Oct. 20, 2013 6:22 p.m. EDT

The NSA call-records program is legal and subject to extensive congressional and judicial oversight. Above all, the program has been effective in helping to prevent terrorist plots against the U.S. and our allies. Congress should adopt reforms to improve transparency and privacy protections, but I believe the program should continue.

The call-records program is not surveillance. It does not collect the content of any communication, nor do the records include names or locations. The NSA only collects the type of information found on a telephone bill: phone numbers of calls placed and received, the time of the calls and duration. The Supreme Court has held this "metadata" is not protected under the Fourth Amendment.

Re:Hypocrisy

[sycodon]

Anyone checked her Ox lately? I think it probably has some holes in it.

Re:Hypocrisy

[lagomorpha2]

And she said that the CIA appears to have violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance.

I don't think she even realizes how hypocritical she is. Surveillance and secrecy are all cool, unless they happen to apply to her. Then it is her -- "Fourth Amendment!"

This is the same woman who is one of the strongest supporters of gun control while she herself has one of the few concealed carry licenses in California. I don't think she even considers hypocrisy something to be ashamed of.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think she even realizes how hypocritical she is. Surveillance and secrecy are all cool, unless they happen to apply to her. Then it is her -- "Fourth Amendment!"

In her defense, having the CIA and NSA is essential to national security. And having the CIA tamper with Congressional Oversight is far worse than most if not all of the stuff that came out in the Snowden leaks. Maybe she thought that congressional oversight could keep them from abusing their power too much. With proper oversight, the CIA might not be able to get away with all the other stuff. I have no problem with the CIA spying on foreign governments. Spying on foreign governments is essential to national security. But we must be careful to make sure they are not abusing their powers. That is where oversight is supposed to come in and keep them in line. But, if they can interfere with congressional oversight and cover up stuff at will, then oversight is ineffective. When that happens, it means they will likely not have sufficient checks on their powers. So, if I was one of the people who was supposed to make sure they were following the rules, I would be much angrier if they tampered with my ability to do my job too.
     

Re:Hypocrisy

[Areyoukiddingme]

It does not collect the content of any communication, nor do the records include names or locations. The NSA only collects the type of information found on a telephone bill: phone numbers of calls placed and received, the time of the calls and duration.

You can tell she's never actually seen her own phone bill. If she had, she'd know they include your name and address—just like the NSA data.

And while we're on the subject, when was the last time you saw an itemized phone bill? It's been at least five or six years since I've seen one. The NSA data has more information than a phone bill.

Re:Hypocrisy

[HiThere]

A point, but not enough of one to excuse her. It definitely comes across as she is objecting to herself, or her staff, being .... I don't know what to call it if she objects to calling it surveilance.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

She also justified, in part, her most recent attempt at an "assault weapon" and high capacity magazine ban with her experience of hearing the gunshots that killed Harvey Milk, and the horror of identifying his body. Of course, most people are probably unaware that Milk and Moscone were killed with a police revolver, not an "assault weapon", which held 6 rounds like most revolvers, no magazine involved, let alone a high capacity magazine. I don't deny that it must have been horrifying. But regardless of how one feels about such a ban, using the Milk & Moscone double-murder as a justification for it was at best disingenuous.

Her legislative efforts in the areas of copyright, gun control, and big brother are often supported by poor reasoning, logical fallacies, misuse of statistics, and outright misrepresentations of fact. Hypocrisy is just the tip of the iceberg with her.

- T

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not hypocritical. Whether you agree with the system or not, our spy agencies have relatively limited oversight. She is part of the "elite few" who get to watch over the watchers. When you hear that they are actively interfering with investigations into their wrongdoing, you should be concerned.

So is she someone you are going to like and have empathy for? Probably not. Should you be concerned when she cries foul? Absolutely.

It's a she, not a he

[Taco Cowboy]

That asshole's name is Dianne Feinstein, a staunchly pro-NSA, pro-BIG BROTHER senator.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[Anonymous Coward]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say it's time to double-down. If she's so against it, she clearly has something to hide.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[memojuez]

You forget, Congress is full of elitists who didn't follow many of the Employment Laws and regulations (Equal Opportunity Employment, Affirmative Action, OSHA, etc) until it required itself in 1994. So, it only stands to reason that one of their ilk, regardless of Party affiliation, would evoke her 4th Amendment rights while gleefully trampling on ours.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[Anonymous Coward]

She has come out in support of the NSA many times; this isn't exactly secret. Do you deny this? The NRA is irrelevant.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[NotDrWho]

If she's attacking the CIA, she's probably a terrorist. Better cuff her and get her on a plane to Gitmo. Better safe than sorry when it comes to national security.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[MightyMartian]

No shit! Congress happily gave Federal agencies powers to spy on virtually every human being on the planet, so they can fucking well live on the same sphere we do.

Don't feel so great when the shoe is on the other foot, eh, Feinstein? Well, a big "fuck you" from the rest of the world.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[Anonymous Coward]

No, she really is fucking nuts and a huge hypocrite. As if the gun control and now governmental spying hypocrisy weren't enough to clue you into that, consider her stance on drones. She was all for more drones... until Code Pink was flying (read: constantly crashing) a cheap $25 remote control helicopter near her house in protest. So, Feinstein made up this whole dramatic story about how there was these huge drones spying on her and peeking in her windows and it scared her so much that she totally went the other way and started demanding new laws to make drones illegal.

She's crazy. She's a liar. She's a hypocrite. How about you put your own bias behind you and actually examine what's being said?

Re:It's a she, not a he

[Anonymous Coward]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander,

You mean, what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[i kan reed]

If only that achieved anything.(not sarcasm)

Re:It's a she, not a he

[Quila]

Neither the NRA or any other pro-rights organization needs to run a spear campaign against her. Merely factually pointing out her activities is quite enough to damage her reputation.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[brainboyz]

I think he got it right. She wants freedom from CIA snooping. I think that's good for all of us.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[DarkOx]

We are all equal but some of us are little more equal.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw her on Meet The Press a few weeks ago. I could not believe that a California Democrat was such a defender of the NSA and domestic spying that they're accused of carrying out. I completely agree with your sentiment.

DAVID GREGORY:

Senator Feinstein, Chairman Rogers, welcome back. Good to have you both. So, the future of spying, it seems to me, is very much like the present. Chairman Rogers, do you view this as a big victory?

"That, as Chairman Rogers said, it has not been abused or misused. And it is carried out by very strictly vetted and professional people."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/54117257/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/january-dianne-feinstein-mike-rogers-alexis-ohanian-john-wisniewski-rudy-giuliani-robert-gates-newt-gingrich-andrea-mitchell-harold-ford-jr-nia-malika-henderson/

Re:It's a she, not a he

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't feel so great when the shoe is on the other foot, eh, Feinstein?

Of course not - shoes are shaped to fit one foot or the other. Putting it on the other foot would be uncomfortable.
Unless of course it was on the wrong foot to begin with, then it would probably feel much better.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[Immerman]

Only a little? Time to paint a few more updates on the side of that barn...

Re:It's a she, not a he

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw her on Meet The Press a few weeks ago. I could not believe that a California Democrat was such a defender of the NSA and domestic spying that they're accused of carrying out ...

What?!?!?

What the hell did you expect from a "government can solve all problems" statist?

Go look at who owns the Democratic Party - government employee unions. It's government for the government by the government - "We the people" be damned.

And you actually can't believe they support overweening government power?

Re:It's a she, not a he

[HornWumpus]

They don't even bother hiding it anymore. She routes millions to her husband and nobody cares.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither the NRA or any other pro-rights organization needs to run a spear campaign against her. Merely factually pointing out her activities is quite enough to damage her reputation.

A spear campaign should probably do more than damage her reputation... it should puncture her, and things around her depending on how aggressive of a campaign it is.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[tramp]

She's crazy. She's a liar. She's a hypocrite.

Sound like a real politician and a real good one.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[Bartles]

Hey, she supports same sex marriage. So she gets a complete pass. You cannot be an authoritarian fascist and support same sex marriage. Obviously.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, she supports same sex marriage.

Entirely selfish. She and her husband have a same sex marriage where they are both on top screwing the public.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[MachineShedFred]

The problem is, she only wants that freedom for her, her committee members, her aides, and her cronies.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[budgenator]

I support same sex marriage partly because it's about time the fags and lesbos feel the same pain and suffering that us breaders do, and mostly because it's none of government's business deciding who can marry whom.

Re:It's a she, not a he

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends, are we talking assault spears or regular spears?

While this is probably true...

[edibobb]

... Senator Feinstein has significantly less technological prowess than my cat, and has exhibited this on numerous occasions.

Re:While this is probably true...

[Akratist]

Given that statement, I'm tempted to ask if your cat is capable of flushing the toilet and what that fact would mean for the average IQ in the Senate.

Re:While this is probably true...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damning your cat with faint praise, I see...

Re:While this is probably true...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think senators require countless aides and interns?

Re:While this is probably true...

[Anonymous Coward]

The first question would be irrelevant, since Feinstein has also never used a toilet and remains full of shit.

Re:While this is probably true...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Senator Feinstein has significantly less technological prowess than my cat, and has exhibited this on numerous occasions.

Less than a kitten, even.

Schadenfreude

[fuzznutz]

Excuse me for a moment while I savor this moment.

Re:Schadenfreude

[interkin3tic]

Only for a moment: this needs to be pressed. Otherwise, congress will pass laws restricting the NSA from spying on congress, and maybe large corporations who donate well. Then everyone will forget about the NSA and we'll be left permanently under big brother's gaze. At least until we say something the government doesn't like, at which point they'll release or make up embarassing or illegal stuff about us, then send us to for-profit prisons to work as slaves.

Maybe a bit too cynical there, but hey, can't be too careful.

Re:Schadenfreude

[OakDragon]

You'd think it sucks to be spied on or something.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Arith]

and here I thought you were being optimistic.
Oh well.
Who likes waffles?

Re:Schadenfreude

[motorhead]

Excuse me while I kiss the sky...

bwing-chacca-ding-dow

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

To those who don't get this: Sen. Feinstein wrote/supported numerous laws (like the 1994 so-called "Assault Weapon Ban", largely her creation) which trampled the constitutional rights of us ordinary citizens.

Re:Schadenfreude

[bizitch]

People deserve the government they elect - People of California - you deserve this hypocritical retard

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think it sucks to be spied on or something.

Now who is that at the door...

I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[Taco Cowboy]

I have sympathy for her

I have absolutely no sympathy for that piece of shit.

She's a typical example of what is wrong with the government of the United States of America.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Do not attack the person. Attack the arguments. This sort of statement is what makes it easy for people to say that privacy advocates are shrill nutjobs.

If privacy and freedom from surveillance are worthy causes, we should applaud *anyone* who makes the argument for privacy and freedom from surveillance, even if it means applauding someone who is typically not on our side, and whom we may find personally reprehensible.

Are we privacy advocates united behind certain beliefs? Or are we just united against certain people?

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[NotDrWho]

I have it on good authority that she's also a banker butt-licker with no fucking heart.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[MightyMartian]

I don't think it's at all out of order to take some pleasure in one of the most-pro NSA people in Congress being hoisted by her own petard. Is it wrong to take pleasure from the chickens coming home to roost for Feinstein... well maybe a little, but I just can't help myself.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[fustakrakich]

A bit more elaboration would be infinitely more intriguing than the trolling exhibited there. Wanna give it a shot? :-)

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[CauseBy]

Fuck that. If an asshole makes fucktard arguments, then you can attack both the asshole and the fucktard arguments. Fuck Feinstein, she's an asshole, and her fucktard opinions are fucking retarded. I was astounded to read this news today -- not because the CIA was spying on Congress but because this piece-of-shit Senator had the ovaries to say out loud that it is somehow wrong to illegally spy on her, but not to illegally spy on other people. Fuck her. Let this be a lesson to her, and maybe she can think about it for the next 20 years after she gets voted out of office for having fucktard opinions.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[WaffleMonster]

No. Do not attack the person. Attack the arguments. This sort of statement is what makes it easy for people to say that privacy advocates are shrill nutjobs.

Attacking people is no way to win an argument yet it communicates a useful function for the purpose of filtering out noise.

While a crackpot might on occasion say something true is it really worth your time to wade through all of their garbage to scrape a few grains of sanity from the bottom of the pan?

If privacy and freedom from surveillance are worthy causes, we should applaud *anyone* who makes the argument for privacy and freedom from surveillance

She is like all of the other power hungry whackos ... she does not care unless it effects her personally...I'm not going to applaud her for that.

Are we privacy advocates united behind certain beliefs? Or are we just united against certain people?

The problem with just supporting any statement from anyone who says anything you want to hear is that doing so negatively effects your credibility.

What if Hitler, Uncle Stalin or Ahmadinejad were to give a speech about the importance of human rights? What do you think would happen to the credibility of the human rights advocate who decides to go ahead and quote it while omitting the emoticon?

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[motorhead]

I can't wait to find out what a 'load mouth" is. Please feel free to speculate.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[Jaysyn]

Please elaborate, or is name-calling all you have in your wheelhouse?

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[Immerman]

Oh, by all means take pleasure in it. But if you want to see things change keep your pleasure to yourself and back her protest. "Even my detractors are rallying behind me" is a powerful battle cry.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[meta-monkey]

No. Do not attack the person. Attack the arguments.

Can't we do both?

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[HornWumpus]

Back her protest?

No.

Back her opponent in the next primary. She is worse then useless.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[mspohr]

Google is your friend. Try these links for starters:

http://www.revolutimes.com/201...

http://www.foundsf.org/index.p...

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[Immerman]

Absolutely no reason you can't do both.
Is she worthy of backing?
Is her cause worth backing?

If your answers are "No" and "Yes", and you make that clear, then your support can be an even more powerful boon to the cause than the support of those who would happily follow her off a cliff. Not to mention informing her potential opponents in the next election as to which issues are actually important to you.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[HornWumpus]

There is only so much time in the day. Violations abound.

Supporting 'her cause' supports her implicitly. Just because her clock is stopped at the current correct time, doesn't mean you should in any way make it look good.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[Anonymous Coward]

What if Hitler, Uncle Stalin or Ahmadinejad were to give a speech about the importance of human rights?

Feinstein's speech is not about scoring points with a cheap ploy. Feinstein, in this instance, is doing her job in exposing a crime being committed by intelligence agencies subordinate to Congress.

I take it you hate this "moron" so much, that you're more than happy to ignore the treason being committed by the executive branch?

Re: I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[Anonymous Coward]

Voted out of office? Hah, she will be voted in as the next president!

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's at all out of order to take some pleasure in one of the most-pro NSA people in Congress being hoisted by her own petard. Is it wrong to take pleasure from the chickens coming home to roost for Feinstein... well maybe a little, but I just can't help myself.

"The computers in question were provided by the CIA at an undisclosed CIA location for use by the members of the intelligence committee."

The computers were provided by the CIA. This is exactly like an employer providing employees with a computer for work. The employer has the right to search and/or monitor the computer at any time; there is typically a click-through disclaimer stating such. Senator Feinstein has been subjected to the same treatment as every American except the general public is using their own computers and having them searched and monitored by various Government agencies in the name of "national security."

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[MightyMartian]

Her cause, so far as I can tell, is to stop Federal spooks from spying on her. It does not appear to be stopping Federal spooks from spying on anybody beyond the rarefied circles of Congress.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[Anonymous Coward]

that's so cute, AS -fucking- IF these are rational arguments made in a system which values said rationality...
NO, it is ABSOLUTELY correct and righteous to blame spook-shills like feinstein, rogers, chambliss, etc, etc, etc (ie nearly ALL OF THEM), because it is by THERE personal efforts that these abominations continue... IT IS THE PEOPLE who run this kabuki theater, not 'policy' or 'arguments', their 'policies' are simply ad hoc bullshit made fresh daily to snow authoritarians such as yourself...
it is ONLY because one eensy teensy tiny portion of the spooks nefarious actions happen to sully HER little world that she is upset; the rest of us can have the NSA shove a camera lens up our collective asses and she won't hiccup...

Re: I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us just object to blatant hypocrisy.

Some of us recognize Feinstein as one of the individuals empowering the surveillance of us society.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[WaffleMonster]

Feinstein's speech is not about scoring points with a cheap ploy. Feinstein, in this instance, is doing her job in exposing a crime being

She only does the job when it effects her personally and her power. Does the office monkey who only does any work while the boss is watching deserve a positive review? I believe the CIAs actions were wrong. My only disagreement is with assigning credit to Feinstein for not sleeping while the boss is looking her way.

I take it you hate this "moron" so much, that you're more than happy to ignore the treason being committed by the executive branch?

Each time without exception someone has used the words "I take it" to describe a position I have never asserted they get it wrong.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[Anonymous Coward]

As a California resident, I am fully entitled to attack the person as she is my Senator.

Senator Feinstein is a woman who is adamantly opposed to gun rights, and yet received a conceal/carry permit until 1982.

She is a woman who adamantly supports the rights of Hollywood in regards to DRM, a stance that harms individual Americans for corporate benefit.

Her husband through his private equity firm runs several companies that are the recipient of government contracts on a single source basis, companies which benefit financially from votes made by her.

In this case, her investigation into the interrogation program found a [b]draft[/b] internal report assessing the program itself; being a draft and not official it is just as possible that it is full of factual errors or personal opinions that were removed from the final as it is to be full of true assessments hidden from the final. If you're in college, this similar to your roomate sending your first draft of a paper to your professor for you to be graded on, not your final paper. It should be outside the scope of the investigation. However, this is typical of the hypocrite Feinstein.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[suutar]

This. She has no problem with the executive branch messing with the public, just with the legislative branch.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Do not attack the person. Attack the arguments. This sort of statement is what makes it easy for people to say that privacy advocates are shrill nutjobs.

This only applies when the person being accused is a member of the public. When one is involved in politics at a high level, attacking the person is a legitimate tactic.

Re:I have no sympathy for that asshole !

[tragedy]

This is exactly like an employer providing employees with a computer for work.

This is where so many people seem to be going wrong here. The computers aren't really property of the CIA itself, they're property of the US government and, through the government, the people of the USA . They don't technically belong to congress either, but if you're going to make an employer/employee comparison, you've got the relationship backwards. The President may be the head of the executive branch, but Congress still holds the pursestrings. This is actually a case of an employer (congress) providing computers to an employee (the CIA) and the employee breaking the rules. Basically, if you're siding with the CIA here, then you should also logically have sided with Terry Childs when he was refusing to hand over control of the network he maintained to his supervisors. The difference being that Terry Childs actually had some legitimate reasons in their security policy to initially withhold the passwords from his supervisors. The CIA had no such justification in this case.

Typical. OK to Spy on Us...

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely typical, she spends the first 10 months defending NSA with it's spying on everyone in the world (including Americans). But the moment it seems to affect her tier of oligarchy and she's against it.

Feinstein only a hypocrite ?

[Taco Cowboy]

I don't think she even realizes how hypocritical she isPlease !

Feinstein is **MUCH MORE** than a mere "hypocrite". Feinstein is a traitor to the nation, one who has done all she can to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Re:Feinstein only a hypocrite ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ronald Reagan was a much bigger traitor. Absolute douche monger.

Re:Feinstein only a hypocrite ?

[kaatochacha]

So was Hitler, but this discussion isn't about him either. Stick to Feinstein.

Re:Feinstein only a hypocrite ?

[OakDragon]

Hitler was a traitor?

Re:Feinstein only a hypocrite ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Coup De Etat is the definition thereof. Duh.

Re:Feinstein only a hypocrite ?

[CrimsonAvenger]

US Constitution, Article 3, Section 3.

Someday, people will learn what "traitor" means in the USA. But probably not soon.

Re:Feinstein only a hypocrite ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been going on for years and years and years.

Espionage is an act of war. Every time people in our government aids and abets our "allies" such as Britain in committing an act of war against the States, this is the Constitutional definition of treason.

Re:Feinstein only a hypocrite ?

[HiThere]

Sorry, but I must disagree. Ronald Reagan didn't have the mental capacity to be a traitor. (His wife is another matter...but she didn't take the oath of office.)

It wasn't snooping

[GodfatherofSoul]

It was Freedom Filing. Murka!

Re:It wasn't snooping

[barlevg]

Actually, according to CIA, it was them attempting to retrieve stolen documents.

Citation: Washington Post

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Feinstein is Chair on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence! That she doesn't know what the CIA, NSA, or anyone else is doing with regard to surveillance, or is kept out of the loop on purpose, or hasn't pulled any muscle to reign it in, speaks volumes to what exactly her position in the committee does.

Quick jab... but sure as hell, when it comes to copyright and the media cartels, her power seems endless.

Re:Wow!

[hypergreatthing]

Everyone knows there's no intelligence in the senate.

Can't change her spots

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same woman who was very pro gun control in San Francisco but went armed to city council meetings. She's fine with damage done to other people, but touch her own little empire and watch out!

Re:Can't change her spots

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had gotten your job through an assassination, you would have went to your job armed as well.

Re:Can't change her spots

[brainboyz]

Yet, somehow, no one else needs that same right?

Re:Can't change her spots

[Anonymous Coward]

That was BEFORE she became mayor.

Ah Feinstein...

[fustakrakich]

Sure is funny hearing this come from her. Too bad none of this stuff has any effect on the elections. Why is it that we allow a single politician to have such a powerful influence on the rest of us who can't vote him/her out of office? It is so wrong. If we can't abolish these committees, then we should demand that the positions been drawn in a random fashion to help mitigate the corruption of careerism.

So it's okay to spy on us, but not them.

[EmagGeek]

I see now.

And we keep re-electing these scoundrels, why, exactly?

Re:So it's okay to spy on us, but not them.

[robinsonne]

Because they have the money to get themselves elected.

Re:So it's okay to spy on us, but not them.

[Quila]

And we keep re-electing these scoundrels, why, exactly?

She is a very wealthy Democrat in a district that will always vote Democrat. The only one who can unseat her would be another Democrat in the primary, but the DNC powers that be would never allow it. Luckily she is quite old, so should die or retire soon. Either is fine with me.

Re:So it's okay to spy on us, but not them.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see now.

Well, the ironic thing is that the spying was on the committee who are supposed to oversee and authorize the spies. The committee can hardly effectively oversee the spying when they are turned into a target of spying themselves.

And we keep re-electing these scoundrels, why, exactly?

Well, the ironic thing is that the spying was on the populace who are supposed to oversee and authorize the government. The populace can hardly effectively oversee the government when they are turned into a target of spying themselves.

Re:So it's okay to spy on us, but not them.

[Will.Woodhull]

Every once in a while an AC says something salient. Case in point:

the spying was on the committee who are supposed to oversee and authorize the spies. The committee can hardly effectively oversee the spying when they are turned into a target of spying themselves.

It seems like Feinstein has adequately demonstrated that she is incapable of doing her current Senate assignments. Is there a procedure to force her out of her chairmanship for cause, where cause is obvious incompetence?

Can a Senator like Feinstein be impeached?

Re:So it's okay to spy on us, but not them.

[The Cat]

Gerrymandering

17th Amendment

NSA Spies on Intelligence Committee...

[The_Systech]

And in other news.. Water is still wet... Duh! i think by now we're all pretty aware the NSA was and is spying on pretty much everyone.

CIA computers

[tomhath]

As I read it, the CIA searched their own computers that were made available to the Senate Committee, looking for documents that were not supposed to be made available or publicly released. For whatever reason (probably a CIA screw-up) someone on the committee found those documents and blabbed about them.

Feinstein's complaint is that the CIA wasn't supposed to monitor what the committee was looking at on those computers. It sounds like she has a reasonable complaint, but given the amount of hysteria around leaks these days it doesn't surprise me that the CIA thought they had a bigger problem than just one of their own inadvertently releasing documents that should not have been.

Re:CIA computers

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse. They supplied millions of pages of documents and, according to DiFi, retracted them. More than once.

The committee nonetheless included references and information in their summary that came from those documents that were -- perhaps criminally -- retracted and/or deleted.

Worse yet, the CIA's counsel then referred the congressional staffers who reviewed and put together their report to the DOJ for prosecution.

That is truly the CIA getting too big for its britches: at the very least, some CIA personnel regard the discharge of congressional duties to investigate government behavior and operations as subordinate to CIA prerogatives. At the very least, somebody at the CIA needs to go to jail. At the worst, the CIA needs to be dismembered, its charter revoked, and its useful functions distributed to other government organs.

Re:CIA computers

[Anonymous Coward]

Feinstein's complaint is that the CIA wasn't supposed to monitor what the committee was looking at on those computers.

My complaint is that the NSA and CIA are not supposed to monitor what I am looking at on my computer.

It sounds like she has a reasonable complaint,

As long as Feinstein does not consider my complaint reasonable, she is being a fucking hypocrite. And if she cites the constitution to back her up in this case rather than the absurdity of an "oversight" committee that is being targeted by their own spies, then she is expressing her belief that constitutional rights are not something for the hoi polloi born without a silver spoon in their mouth, just like there were people arguing that constitutional rights were not something for people born without white skin.

Of course, she'd be a fucking hypocrite even when just considering the oversight angle: in a democracy, the populace is the oversight committee for the government. Not the other way round.

Re:CIA computers

[DarkOx]

No we are not being unfair to Feinstein. Secrect committees and secret courts monitoring secret agencies about what secret data they are collecting in their secret facilities; isn't a workable model on the scale we are trying to do it.

Sure state craft requires some secrets and shadows, but democracy in the form a functioning republic needs a lot a sunshine. We have been trying to get people like her to understand we have gone way way way to far with this crap. We have created a monster "We the people" can't control, they 1% who can get elected Senator can't control either. What we have is something that is almost completely beyond control at this point. That monster is crushing our most basic principles under boots year by year, month by month, day by day, moment to moment; destroying the very society it was breed to protect.

Its high time to we take the NSA out behind the tool shed and put it down. The CIA and FBI need a sound kicking; right sizing and reminding of their core missions.

Re:CIA computers

[Anonymous Coward]

destroying the very society it was breed to protect.

Past tense..."breeded"

Re:CIA computers

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone (intentionally or unintentionally) leaked to congress their own account of what was really going on

of course the committee members focused on reports that were critical - they might well have glossed over other reports that supported the CIA's actions - when you're on a fishing trip you only look for the fish that interest you

Re:CIA computers

[hey!]

The document in question was an internal CIA investigation that concluded that the CIA's post 9/11 extraordinary rendition and torture program had not produced any useful intelligence. That contradicts the CIAs reporting to congress on the program.

Re:CIA computers

[Charliemopps]

No we are not being unfair to Feinstein.

Right, but shouting "TOLD YOU SO" so loud that everyone gets distracted while the NSA slips out the back isn't in our best interest either. Let's focus on the real problem here... Politicians being Politicians is the least of our problems.

Re:CIA computers

[Tom]

This has serious ramifications on congressional oversight of intelligence orgs. At stake is the existence of any elected oversight of spooks.

This. So few people understand this. This is a major battle in the war the intelligence agencies wage to become independent from the electorate and to avoid any meaningful oversight. We laugh when conspiracy theorists rant about the NWO, but we are watching on as a shadow government gets formed right in front of our eyes.

Re:CIA computers

[Anonymous Coward]

bred.

I won't hold my breath

[Taco Cowboy]

I say it's time to double-down

You gotta understand that assholes like Dianne Feinstein doesn't think like us.

She thinks she's in the 0.1% elite, and for that, she ought to have the immunity from the same BIG BROTHER that she has thrown her support for.

As for us, asshole Feinstein look at us as if we are peons, slaves for the elites, that we do not have any right to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that we ought to be stripped of everything, and kow-tow to her and her kinds.

Re:I won't hold my breath

[WaffleMonster]

As for us, asshole Feinstein look at us as if we are peons, slaves for the elites, that we do not have any right to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that we ought to be stripped of everything, and kow-tow to her and her kinds.

I sometimes wonder how monsters like Feinstein get any votes at all while the likes of Feingold can lose to a climate change denier. We have only ourselves to blame.

Re:I won't hold my breath

[lagomorpha2]

As for us, asshole Feinstein look at us as if we are peons, slaves for the elites, that we do not have any right to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that we ought to be stripped of everything, and kow-tow to her and her kinds.

I sometimes wonder how monsters like Feinstein get any votes at all while the likes of Feingold can lose to a climate change denier. We have only ourselves to blame.

Personally I blame California.

Re:I won't hold my breath

[zlives]

if only the people could vote to change... the name.

Re:I won't hold my breath

[mspohr]

Actually, she is in the 0.1% elite and got her money the true American way by inheritance, marriage, and political corruption:
"On January 20, 1980, in San Francisco, California, finance capitalist Richard C. Blum (born in 1936) and the ambitious Democratic Party politician Dianne Feinstein (born 1933) were married in a wedding ceremony at San Francisco City Hall. This marriage created a family economic and political alliance that in a little over a decade would allow them to become the top power couple in the state of California with a place on the national and world stages. They remain at the pinnacle of power today, he as a billionaire financier, speculator, real estate executive and deal maker; she as the senior Senator (California’s highest federal official), from the largest and most powerful state in the United States. They exemplify power as it is now wielded in the higher circles of the class system of the U.S. today, and illustrate well the dismal results of this system. This system is best characterized as a plutocratic kleptocracy, completely lacking in authentic democracy, operated by and for corporate racketeers, in short, a dictatorship of big capital, the top 1% of wealth holders, which makes up a ruling class. "
More background here:
http://www.foundsf.org/index.p... ... and here:
http://www.revolutimes.com/201...

Re:I won't hold my breath

[PRMan]

Because Northern California voters are beyond stupid. They'll unthinkingly vote for anyone who is "Democrat" even if he bankrupted the state twice already or if she has already been a downright awful senator for 3 or 4 terms already.

Re:I won't hold my breath

[Bartles]

There is a whole swath of voters in this country that have been brainwashed to think only two issue matter. Same sex marriage and abortion. While they are certainly important issues, they are not exclusive. A fascist totalitarian society is still fascist and totalitarian, with or without same sex marriage. Wake up America.

Re:I won't hold my breath

[RR]

As for us, asshole Feinstein look at us as if we are peons, slaves for the elites, that we do not have any right to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that we ought to be stripped of everything, and kow-tow to her and her kinds.

I sometimes wonder how monsters like Feinstein get any votes at all while the likes of Feingold can lose to a climate change denier. We have only ourselves to blame.

I didn't vote for her. I voted for somebody else. Yet Feinstein was just, in 2012, reelected with the most votes any senator has ever received, ever.

I think humans are defective. Democracy works fine for small governments, like a village. It's problematic for a political unit so big that you can't travel from one end to another without special arrangements, like California, the 12th largest economy in the world. Democracy is a terrible idea for a country as large as the United States. It's better than any other idea we've tried so far, but there are just too many voices demanding too much attention for it to work well.

So, humans simplify. Most people stick to the 2 parties that they hear about the most. The media talk about the 2 parties that pay them the most. The major party candidates listen to the donors who donate the most. Larry Lessig hopes that campaign finance reform will fix democracy, but humans still need simplified choices.

I think humans can't reasonably manage something as large as the United States. The federal government needs to be scaled way down, or the United States split up, so more local decisions can be made about local issues. But, again, humans are defective, and for example people in New York are personally offended at the local education decisions made in Texas, so the federal government just keeps growing.

Re:I won't hold my breath

[painandgreed]

Because Northern California voters are beyond stupid. They'll unthinkingly vote for anyone who is "Democrat" even if he bankrupted the state twice already or if she has already been a downright awful senator for 3 or 4 terms already.

It's not that they'll vote for anybody that is a Democrat, but rather against anybody who is a Republican. No matter how bad their guy is, they're still better than the other guy's guy. I see the same thing for people voting for Republicans in OK. So long as they're not a democrat, they think they'll come out ahead.

Re:I won't hold my breath

[Rockoon]

Democracy works fine for small governments, like a village. It's problematic for a political unit so big that you can't travel from one end to another without special arrangements, like California, the 12th largest economy in the world.

The Representative Democracy our founding fathers intended did not have this issue. The issue began when the Federal government grew beyond its scope. Federal spending is now about equal to the total combined spending of State and Local governments (a little larger now, actually.) This is very far removed from the intentions of our founding fathers. Good intentions was the excuse for the massive amount of violence used to overthrow the States as primary governing bodies.

Re:I won't hold my breath

[shutdown -p now]

Many states themselves have grown up in size significantly since then. One would argue that a unitary state the size of California or Texas is already too big for properly functioning democracy.

Re:I won't hold my breath

[richlv]

they are voting against the wrong lizard after all. that must be smart

Re:I won't hold my breath

[strikethree]

I sometimes wonder how monsters like Feinstein get any votes at all while the likes of Feingold can lose to a climate change denier.

Good question.

We have only ourselves to blame.

Bad (and unsupported!) conclusion.

Uh OH

[JimSadler]

And here we are told that the CIA only spies on other nations and not within the US. I will say that her position is such that an enemy who turned her would have a serious advantage and therefore she does need deep investigation as a matter of national security as do all others involved in the intelligence community. The catch is that the CIA is not the org that is supposed to do this sort of thing. Just maybe this world is so dangerous that all of this spying needs to be going on. Maybe I am lucky in not knowing the evil going on around me.

Liz Cheney Syndrome

[akirapill]

Your rights are only important when they're also my rights.

Um what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see the issue being that CIA provided the computers. If company provides a computer you submit to their acceptable use policy along with their ability to view what is on or done with said machine. If it had been a virus that was loaded on the machines in questions the Senator would be complaining that they allowed it to happen.

Re:Um what?

[ray-auch]

Yup, not only that, but on CIA territory:

The computers in question were provided by the CIA at an undisclosed CIA location

So, you go visit the CIA, you sit down at a CIA computer, and you expect they are not monitoring its use ? I wouldn't expect that when going to any client site let alone a f***ing intelligence agency.

What next ? She going to complain that the CIA computer also intercepted messages sent to someone in the Ecuadorian embassy in London ?

Sure, I'm the idiot

[Taco Cowboy]

And so the NRA's smear campaign continues to influence idiots like you

I am a card carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU.

I am an American who treasure the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and am willing to do anything and everything to protect my country from traitors such as that asshole Feinstein.

If doing so makes me an "idiot", so be it, and I hope that America has more "idiots" like me than "geniuses" such as your kind.

Re:Sure, I'm the idiot

[LostInTaiwan]

You too? I thought I'm the only idiot in the room. . . .

Re:Sure, I'm the idiot

[nuonguy]

For the record, I'm not american, so I can't vote but I imagine I might support just about any other candidate except her based solely on her position on NSA spying up to now.

You, however, haven't said anything except that you hate her. Your vitriol is rated at 5,Insightful. I see no justification for that except from people living inside the same media bubble as you. Maybe you could post something insightful or informative such as positions she's taken or legislation she's voted on.

How can I tell the difference between you and some right wing crazy that thinks that hurricanes are caused by gay marriage?

Forget it, just keep ranting about how stupid and how much of an asshole she is, that's good for karma.

Ruling class

[Anonymous Coward]

And she said that the CIA appears to have violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance.

I don't think she even realizes how hypocritical she is. Surveillance and secrecy are all cool, unless they happen to apply to her. Then it is her -- "Fourth Amendment!"

Yes, because she's a member of the ruling class in our country - the incumbent politicians. We need term limits.

Also, enough of political dynasties. No more Kennedy's, Bush's or Clintons in the Whitehouse. If the Dems run Hillary for '16, they have NO chance of getting a vote from me. The same goes for the Reps if they run Jeb or any other Bush.

Re:Ruling class

[Anonymous Coward]

This. If George Clinton gives up music or Reggie Bush gives up football to run for office, they're not getting my vote either.

But it was only metadata!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should she be concerned about the CIA spying on the Senate's computers if it was only metadata and business records?? What does Senator Feinstein have to be afraid of if she isn't a terrorist and hasn't broken the law? Only terrorists would worry about being spied on.

Re:But it was only metadata!!!

[motorhead]

I don't think she understands how the whole totalitarian thing works. The closer you are to the top the MORE you are spied upon. She should have a staffer look it up.

What could possibly go wrong?

[PvtVoid]

Let's see ... you're investigating potential war crimes perpetrated by the CIA, so you store all of the records of the investigation on an air-gapped computer system located at a CIA facility in Virginia. What could possibly go wrong?

CIA searched the CIA's own computers?

[Cajun Hell]

It looks like the Senator is complaining that the CIA searched some CIA computers, not that they searched the Senator's computer. Am I misreading this, or is this a bunch of noise about NOTHING?

Re:CIA searched the CIA's own computers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. And talk about the Fourth Amendment is entirely inappropriate in this context.

Re:CIA searched the CIA's own computers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I may own the accomidations and bathrooms as part of owning the hotel but that doesn't mean I can put up hidden cameras there and sell the images to porn sites.

Re:CIA searched the CIA's own computers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. And talk about the Fourth Amendment is entirely inappropriate in this context.

Par for the course with Feinstein. On that course, she has a handicap larger than her IQ.

Re:CIA searched the CIA's own computers?

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I read you're misreading it. The CIA agreed to put a bunch of its own stuff on its own computers for the Senate to look at, under the written agreement that they would let the Senate do its investigation without interference. Apparently, at one point they (the CIA and apparently 3rd party public contractors) started removing documents from the secure computers in violation of that agreement. That was what you were referring to, and that alone would be the CIA searching and hiding stuff from the Senate in violation of a written agreement (and several laws, mentioned at the end of the speech).

However, the issue went further after that first incident was "resolved". At one point, the CIA included a report it had made about the same topics that the Senate was investigating on those computers. Those papers were printed, removed from the CIA room and taken in a secure fashion to the committee offices, per exactly what they were allowed to do. The CIA then, allegedly, and if I read it right (I only read it once), decided to break into the committee computers and removed the documents. Again, there are a list of laws and constitutional provisions that this would have potentially violated mentioend at the end of the speech.

Again, I read this quickly and only once, so if I got a detail wrong someone else might correct me. Also, I should mention that given James Clapper's blatant lying to congress re: NSA spying, it doesn't seem like any consequences come with giving the legislature a big fuck off.

Re:CIA searched the CIA's own computers?

[pcwhalen]

You're right. And talk about the Fourth Amendment is entirely inappropriate in this context.

Correct. She got it wrong here: this is not a 4th Amendment fact set.

Just like she gets it wrong when she says it does NOT abridge one's 4th Amendment rights to have wholesale recording of citizen's phone data.

She calls it like she sees it; whichever is politically expedient at the time.

I do not like her, Sam-I-Am.

Red Herring

[Anonymous Coward]

Feinstein's complaint is that the CIA wasn't supposed to monitor what the committee was looking at on those computers

Feinstein is one of the most manipulative lying underhanded politicians in Washington. She doesn't give a shit that the CIA audited a classified computer, what she wants to do is grandstand about a red herring to distract from the real constitutional violations that she has been helping to conceal.

Possible prosecution?

[AndyKron]

Possible prosecution? Ding ding ding! Another lie has been detected!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Let's Be Clear...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the Obama Administration that is doing the spying on Congress.

Feinstein is the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Feinstein is a liar and has mislead the American people on countless occasions about NSA spying and has been in lock step with the emerging police state. this is a distraction from the real constitutional violations that she has been complicit in covering up.

She deserves every insult, every invective and our complete contempt. And even more so for this latest charade and false indignation. If anything this just shows that not even the CIA respects her.

Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally the playing feild is starting to level out! If you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen! No reason our elected officials sould be immune to system they created! Now it's a worldwide race to see who can spy the most. Governments, corporations and individuals are all welcome in the brave new would, maybe our founding fathers weren't so dumb after all! Should have left privacy alone, good luck getting that kitty back in the sack!

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think Senators have Aides?

Wait...

[kaatochacha]

They visit a secret "undisclosed CIA location", use PCs that are "provided" for them by the CIA, then are surprised that the CIA knows what's on them?

If I walk over to my friend's house, he lets me borrow his PC, I write a nasty email criticizing my friend, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he somehow found out what I'd written.

The biggest big government police state lover...

[Zeio]

The biggest big government police state lover Swinestein is mad at the evil police state she helped create?

Why so serious....

[ssimpson]

As always, Glenn Greenwald has thought provoking narrative.

Diebold...

[PortHaven]

Any other questions?

Animal Farm

[ThatsNotPudding]

I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon. Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

Because she - being a very wealthy Senator - is more equaler than the rest of us.

Re:Animal Farm

[Anonymous Coward]

I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon. Why does she not have sympathy for us, and for our arguments against being spied upon?

Because she - being a very wealthy Senator - is more equaler than the rest of us.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" - G.Orwell, Animal Farm

As a card carrying member of the NRA

[PortHaven]

Please know that we 3 Senator Feinstein. There is no need to smear her. She smears her stupidity all across her face.

Dear Diane: DU-UH!

[Anonymous Coward]

When you unleash a mad dog (unbridled, unregulated and uncontrolled spying), don't complain when it bites you.

Consider this: The NSA/CIA/U.N.C.L.E./Control is designated to spy on "enemies of the state."

However, they also know that the things that can REALLY AFFECT THEIR JOBS, BUDGETS AND MISSIONS are being discussed in an environment that they already have wired to the tits for spying on the rest of us.

Now, only the US Congress can put two and two together, and come up with one.

DUH.

My cat as well...

[PortHaven]

Though one must convert all output to PETSCII

Re:My cat as well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Though one must convert all output to PETSCII

Stop maligning my beloved Commodore PET and SuperPET and CBM computers. They used PETSCII.

Wait WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can she expect privacy on CIA provided computer? That's like expecting privacy at large company's corporate computer. Plus the document is related to CIA own data not her personal stuff.

It could be simple of access level change and not removal of documents. The documents are still there she just no longer can see them.

Snoop my ass

[meta-monkey]

I am so sick of the word "snooping." Snooping is what you do when you're twelve years old and you peek in mom and dad's closet to see what you're getting for Christmas. What the government does is called "spying," or "gaining illegal access" or "hax0ring ur boxen." It is not "oh you little scamp, doing your snooping tee hee!" It's FUCKING SPYING.

Re:Snoop my ass

[DaMattster]

Yes, it is wholesale spying! But, in this case, it's a good thing. Let the politicos sweat for a while.

It's easy to tell

[morgauxo]

It's easy to tell if they someone has been going through the private pictures on her computer. Check the log of their sick days. I don't care what kind of torture resistance training they have been through. Nobody has a stomache that strong!

NRA and ACLU??

[morgauxo]

While I personally agree with the stated mission of both of those organizations aren't they just going to cancel each other out, spending most of your membership dues on campaign donations on opposite sides from one another?

Re:NRA and ACLU??

[HornWumpus]

The ACLU isn't anti second amendment. They just don't actively support that particular civil liberty.

Both the NRA and the ACLU are pro-civil liberty organizations. Between them, they support (as much as realistically possible) the whole constitution. The NRA is the United States oldest civil liberty organization.

Re:NRA and ACLU??

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the NRA and the ACLU are pro-civil liberty organizations. Between them, they support (as much as realistically possible) the whole constitution. The NRA is the United States oldest civil liberty organization.

Well, it was once it stopped being a shooting-sports organization.

Re:NRA and ACLU??

[HornWumpus]

It was always both.

Granting it had to step up when idiots started to gain power.

Re:NRA and ACLU??

[DMUTPeregrine]

It should also probably be mentioned that part of why the ACLU doesn't (often) actively support the second amendment not because the members don't believe in it, but because the NRA serves the purpose well enough that it would be a waste of donations.

Re:NRA and ACLU??

[Agripa]

I am sure that explains all of the time the ACLU said the 2nd Amendment was a collective right, of the militia, and not an individual right. That is still their position and they misrepresented US versus Miller from 1939 to justify it.

Re:NRA and ACLU??

[morgauxo]

I wasn't necessarily saying that the ACLU is against the second amendment. I was more thinking that Republicans tend to be for that particular right while Democrats tend to be against it. Thus a lot of the NRA's money goes for supporting Republican candidates, if not directly then by petitioning their own members to vote for them. Even though the Republicans seem to be hell bent against pretty much every other right.

Democrats (until recently) at least seemed to be for civil liberties (with that one exception). I don't know as much about what the ACLU does with their money but I am guessing a lot of it goes to supporting Democrats. If so then supporting both organizations, even with the non-conflicting goal of supporting ALL of our liberties could just be canceling out one side of your money against the other.

And that is how the 2-party system lizards ALWAYS win...

Oh I wish

[morgauxo]

Oh I wish somebody would run a "spear" campaign against her. If you meant "smear" campaign though you are right. Just give her a microphone and let her do it herself.

Re:Oh I wish

[Quila]

Touch typing and hand injuries just don't mix. It's a lot of effort just to type this well.

Re: Oh I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you took the extra effort to explain, and that little more to tell us it hurts to do so.

Re: Oh I wish

[Quila]

No hurt, but the gauze is throwing off my touch typing.

She's just upset we used those private pics

[WillAffleckUW]

Admittedly, posting them in the CIA bathrooms was a bit too much, but a joke's a joke.

Re:Given the Obama Admin a pass on everything else

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking Shill.

ewww

[morgauxo]

ewwww

I'm willing to feel bad for anyone who's boss made them read about her personal life. Many times more so if there were pictures!

Good!!

[DaMattster]

Rather than spying on American citizens, the CIA is actually spying on our elected officials. This makes me smile even more. I would really like the CIA to release this data. This is, no sarcasm, a good use of the CIA. Our elected idiots need to be reigned in.

Re:Good!!

[Areyoukiddingme]

Our elected idiots need to be reigned in.

Reined! REINED GODDAMNIT! As in the reins on a horse. Reigning is what a king does. It's pretty much the exact opposite of the meaning of the idiom. A king does whatever he likes. A reined in horse goes where its rider wants.

Newsflash...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you work for the government, and your government equipment is involved in a spillage, the government will confiscate that equipment and sanitize it. This is SOP for government agencies, and everyone who uses government equipment gets training on this. This is not a result of the spy culture, and, given its extreme exaggeration, is likely intended to erode opposition to government spying through overexposure.

This needed to be public

[delcielo]

Regardless of the hypocrisy of Feinstein, this turn of events needed to be made public.

The CIA did something wrong. The Senate opened an investigation. The CIA accidentally sent them incriminating information, then deleted some after it had already been reviewed. The CIA agreed not to delete any more, then did it again. The Senate put some of this incriminating information into their official report and moved evidence to a secure location. The CIA didn't much care for that and started an investigation into how they got it, trumped up accusations of criminal conduct and have refused to accept the legitimate oversight role of the Senate. Hate Feinstein all you want, but don't dismiss this illegitimate action by the CIA because she's no angel herself.

Re:This needed to be public

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! I'm surprised that there is so much focus on schadenfreude and not enough concern about what this really means. Don't get me wrong - enjoy the snark, but after you are done - read her speech/accounting of events. It is disturbing.

Re:This needed to be public

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, WE already knew our intelligence agencies are evil. Feinstein doesn't.

TL;DR

[Squiggle]

For those that didn't read the article, there are a few important points to clarify:

Feinstein's staff is being (falsely) accused of hacking/spying on CIA since they got their hands on some documents the CIA did not want them to have: namely the CIA's own internal investigation of the documents being released to the senate investigation. It seems like the "search tool" provided to the senate staff picked up more than the CIA thought it would. The staffers smartly made their own copy of these docs (as previous evidence had disappeared) and then the CIA did a search of the investigations computers without seemingly any authority to do so.

The final twist is that the CIA internal investigation supposedly agrees with the senate investigation, while publically the CIA disagrees. Feinstein basically has them over a barrel, plus they pushed their luck to try and escape the trap and got themselves in deeper with the potentially highly illegal search.

It also seems likely that the CIA lawyer who allowed all the CIA torture is heavily involved now in trying to save his own ass.

Re:TL;DR

[Quila]

It seems like the "search tool" provided to the senate staff picked up more than the CIA thought it would

This would be considered spillage if classified information was sent where it wasn't supposed to go.

got themselves in deeper with the potentially highly illegal search.

What is illegal about the government searching a government computer to find and remove said spillage?

Re:TL;DR

[shutdown -p now]

This is an oversight committee that is specifically created to study this topic; there's no "spillage" here, they're fully entitled to access to any and all documents directly pertaining to the issue, which those were.

Re:TL;DR

[Quila]

This is an oversight committee that is specifically created to study this topic; there's no "spillage" here

Using CIA computers, the committee found classified documents they were not supposed to get, and the CIA looked at those CIA computers to determine how the committee found them, and where on a non-CIA-accessible part of the network they were copied to. So, now you have classified documents in a place where the classifiying authority did not authorize them go to.

Basically, the committee pulled a Snowden on the CIA, getting documents they shouldn't have had and copying them.

Re:TL;DR

[shutdown -p now]

The documents in question shouldn't have been classified in the first place, as they are directly relevant to the topic the committee is studying (indeed, as obvious from their contents, they're crucial). The reason why they even came up is because the committee was searching for relevant search terms!

CIA shouldn't be able to pull the "classified" card on the committee that is specifically formed to investigate their abuses, including classifying things that aren't classified. They most certainly shouldn't be able to raid other committee's computers to destroy the copies (what guarantee do we have that only those copies were destroyed, and nothing else?).

Re:TL;DR

[Quila]

indeed, as obvious from their contents, they're crucial

It was CIA work product, their conclusions, not actual information on the program itself.

They most certainly shouldn't be able to raid other committee's computers to destroy the copies

They didn't, they accessed CIA computers in the CIA SCIF. Once they realized thei unintentional access to these documents would not last, committee members then took the documents out of the SCIF, without redaction by the CIA, contrary to the agreement with the CIA.

It's just so fun to see Feinstein's own people playing the Snowden part.

Re:TL;DR

[david_thornley]

You seem to be missing the concept of oversight. The committee had the duty of examining the CIA to see if it was working right. In order to do that, they need to be able to examine documents other than the ones the CIA wants them to see. Think of the Senate committee as auditors: in order to do their job, they need free access. In this case, the staffers found a document relevant to the committee that the CIA didn't want them to see, because it proved that a controversial CIA activity had been useless, and they'd previously lied about it. That's what they're supposed to do. The document is something the oversight committee needs to consider, and to take into account when proposing new legislation.

If you think the CIA should be entirely self-policing, your position is consistent. If you think there should be oversight from something other than the executive branch, it isn't.

Re:TL;DR

[Quila]

If Feinstein thinks her committee is right in pulling a Snowden, then her position is inconsistent. That is my point. As far as the hypocrisy of Feinstein goes, the relevance of the document doesn't matter.

This isn't spying, it's evidence tampering....

[pcwhalen]

At the outset, let's look at the moral of the story: You can't trust spies or spy agencies. Especially not the way the Senator has consistently told us we should trust the NSA.

The "CIA computers" were part of a document production system provided by the CIA pursuant to a Senate Committee subpoena. It contained CIA documents responsive to the Senate subpoena in electronic form instead of paper copies. The document depository was run by private contractors. That's not really that unusual.

Apparently, when the CIA found out they had turned over to the Senate Committee a CIA draft report that was particularly harmful to the CIA's position, the draft report "disappeared" from the computerised document depository. The senior Senator from California believes the CIA caused it to disappear.

It's like erasing portions of White House tapes that had been subpoenaed a la Nixon. Just because it was done by the CIA doesn't mean it was spying, merely criminal tampering with a federal investigation. That's all.

Trust the CIA and the NSA. They will never over-reach or break the law.

sorry

[slapout]

Sorry Sen Feinstein, we'd come to help you but you took all our guns away

Re:Given the Obama Admin a pass on everything else

[thaylin]

Obama? This predates Obama, this goes back to the start of the patriot act and Bush.

Happens Everywhere

[DarthVain]

Unfortunately. People are either stupid or easily influenced. Part of it is probably the propaganda bombardment they get during and leading up to elections. Hell politicians don't even bother with that anymore, they campaign 100% of the time now.

I have a friend who I would consider otherwise intelligent, however I could not believe his political leanings. Basically voting against his best interests. Political parties also seem to tend to create these fictional realities that people buy into. Ideologies that they proport, but never really live up to. I think the big problem is, anyone that closely follows politics would easily see through the lies, however most are so disinterested in politics, so apathetic about their vote being more less meaningless, that most don't vote, and those that do don't really pay enough attention to even make an informed decision. Also there are social status that comes into play, voting for Conservatives/Republicans means you must be part of the wealthy elite (even though your really not).

Anyway I mean the guy in question is in a Union, and when I said that voting for Conservatives in Canada was counter to his best interests because they are anti-union he didn't believe me. His impression was that the Conservatives loved Unions and they had never ever done anything to Unions in the past. Some of the first things they did once elected were to break several Unions and force settlements, all under the guise of "for the sake of the economy" etc...

Anyway I know a few that are informed, and swing Conservative because they believe in certain factual things, which I can respect, however most seem to just spit ideology and rhetoric, most of which is meaningless as fed to them, and seem more than happy to vomit it up over anyone else close enough to listen.

Also not to generalize, but Old People. They tend to pay about as much attention (which is none), however are much more dangerous because most of them do vote. Most of them vote very consistently, and will proudly say that they have been Conservative for 30 years. Never mind that the Conservative party they are used to voting for has little resemblance to the one that exists today. They are not voting for someone, or something, but an idea of what they think a party is. Which is why in a rather cynical move the Conservatives apparently amended a bill recently to attempt to reduce the number of younger voters (as they more often than not do not vote Conservative). Anyway haven't really looked up the details for that one yet, but I wouldn't doubt it given their past machinations.

Saw something that needed to be made public...

[pcwhalen]

Regardless of the hypocrisy of Feinstein, this turn of events needed to be made public.

But not in an open-forum. That's whistle blowing. And that's always wrong.

Wait....

OK to snoop on citizens, but not on senators

[Squidlips]

I love how this pummeling of the 4th Amendment is all of a sudden a Big Deal when it is directed at a Senator.

Re:Given the Obama Admin a pass on everything else

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama? This predates Obama, this goes back to the start of the patriot act and Bush.

It's become a lot worse since Obama took office.

At least the press did their job of trying to keep Bush honest. They abdicated that role with Obama for the role of cheerleader.

Most of them, anyway.

How naive?

[Anonymous Coward]

That the US government thinks the CIA works for them.

Only Congressmen/women are this stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was using a CIA-provided computer at a CIA-provided location I'd sure as hell expect that the CIA would be monitoring everything that I do on it. Senator Feinstein, welcome to Life in 21st Century America.

./ = where no RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, the computers were set up in agreement with the CIA to review CIA activities at their own facility. An internal document of the CIA reached the same conclusions that the review committee was getting to but then the CIA went and looked at that comptuer in violation of the already established agreement. Legitimate complaint while investigating CIA abuses, much as we might deride Feinstein for her involvement in other areas. Rather misleading headline, as usual

Frankenstein...

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be up for re-election. Kiss butt time, although you know she supports spying on common peons like us.. Sad but it seems people (Californians) are too stupid to connect the dots and keep re-electing this fraud.

Only peons can be searched with impunity

[ahodgson]

Come on, CIA. It's only OK to snoop on the other 300 million Americans. Not those special protected royals .. err .. politicians.

Bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Diane Feinstein trys everything she can, to infringe on our constitutional rights, and now she has the gull to cry about hers.

Re:Given the Obama Admin a pass on everything else

[Quila]

I was surprised that CBS was leading the charge on Fast & Furious. Liberals eating their own? Nope, turns out that reporter had been a thorn in management's side a long time for not sticking to party line reporting, and she is finally being drummed out of the network. I guess your info digging pissing off the White House enough to have them yell at you is a bad move for a journalist in a liberal network.

CIA was also hacking into her brain

[strstr]

But she was unwitting to it and or thought the information was too classified to tell the public.

http://www.oregonstatehospital...

The technology behind this type of surveillance allows us to conceal and hide crime, and stay on top of any potential threats that may expose us. The issue of losing funding, or being prosecuted makes violating the 4th amendment and other rules that much worth taking the risk. Now we know how to manipulate the public and Senator Feinstein, and the entire Intelligence Committee, who we deploy psy-ops to in order to push and secure our liberty and agendas.

FOR THE WORLD DOMINATION STRATEGY!!!

Makes you wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

What were those computers being used for by the Senate? Maybe hiding their stock investment information from the public eye? Or records of their undocumented campaign contributions from foreign governments? Or other outright chicanery perpetrated by the Senate.

Entitlement & Deferential Treatment

[Scot Seese]

Silly readers, lawmakers expect deferential treatment. They think they're special. From the almost total inability of local police to pull them over or ticket for speeding or DUI to the number of actual hours/days worked in a year, the aides, assistants, staffers to fetch the coffees or arrange the plane tickets and the endless meetings with minions from Fortune 500, power elite groveling at their feet for legislation to protect their interests and so on.

You are sheep, they are the shepherds, and when they create rules, they think not of themselves, but of you.

Re:Given the Obama Admin a pass on everything else

[thaylin]

Sort of like the journalists reporting faux news for lying...Maybe those sort of things are not partisan like you make them out to be.

Good Times A Com'n

[Anonymous Coward]

This is going to be good !

Popcorn pop'n.

Hey congress. You broke it. You bought it.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

The patriot act. Homeland Security. Secret laws. Secret panels. When you passed this shit, did you all honestly think it would never come back to bite you in the ass?

Well, look behind you.

If anything she's exactly who *SHOULD BE SPIED ON*

[Anonymous Coward]

All members of the government should have every activity spied on, and reported to the public while they are in office.

What bribes they take, what jobs they are offered *while in office, for after they get out of office, what drugs they take, whether or not they inhaled or swallowed.

Hell, how many 2nd and 3rd breakfasts they ate, how many speeding tickets they got out of, how many DUI charges were dropped, etc...

Everything down to these assholes favorite brand of panty-liner should be included in the reports to make sure they use bio-degradable materials.

(Yes, I'm exaggerating, but to prove a point) - the very people who should be watched most thoroughly because they are the ones who are the most corrupt shouldn't be able to get out of being spied upon if their bosses (Us - the actual people, not the corporations) can be spied upon.

All laws should be triply applied to them. All charges / fines should be tripled for them because they of all people should know better - since they or their predecessors wrote the fucking laws.

As I read it ..

[DTentilhao]

@tomhath: "As I read it, the CIA searched their own computers that were made available to the Senate Committee, looking for documents that were not supposed to be made available or publicly released" link

'Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) accused the CIA of secretly removing documents, searching committee-used computers and attempting to intimidate Congressional investigators by requesting an FBI probe of their conduct` ..

'Feinstein implied that the CIA sabotaged the committees' efforts from the outset, loading a massive amount of files on computers with no index, structure or ability to search. “It was a true document dump,” Feinstein said.`

'the committee had previously seen cases in which more than 900 pages of records disappeared from the database with no explanation.`

“There is no legitimate reason to allege to the Justice Department that Senate staff may have committed a crime”

Who do you call?

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, someone's reigning this surveillance beast in, hopefully. CIA is openly doing the right thing with this "California Democrat".

Thank you !

[Taco Cowboy]

Whew ! And I was feeling so lonely.

Fact is, our country, the United States of America, was founded by a bunch of idiots, idiots who cared about their liberties.

The problem we are facing right now is, most of the Americans have grown so "smart" that they willy-nilly give up their liberties in exchange for some pie-in-the-sky promise of "security".

For me, I rather stay as an idiot than being so smart that I end up losing all my liberties.

Feinstein, the future of Western women

[MonsterMasher]

It amazes me how someone like Feinstein because of her gender is given auto-procreation rights - all she or any amoral or otherwise women in the West just needs to wiggle a finger and spread legs... Ta-Da another amoral psycho-bitches nightmare spawn, ready to push for more misandric laws to punish males for their 'females' inability to be successful given all the social, sexual, reproductive, educational, and legal advantages. Poor dears..
No, it's sad because IMHO I can go out today and likely the first 5 guys I run into all have a far better world view and better human morals and values, and it's very likely I could spend the next week talking with women and finding maybe as many women who are at least trying to live a balanced life.
The female in the West has long since passed the point of toxicity, and Feinstein and her like are what the modern women can't wait to be. Walking scum.

Re:Given the Obama Admin a pass on everything else

[Quila]

Sort of like the journalists reporting faux news for lying...

Liberal netowrk journalists attacking the one non-liberal network is great for a career.

So wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

So wait... The committee set up to investigate something accepted a free loan of a computer from the people they were investigating...

How stupid do they have to be?

If the police investigate me, I sure hope they run their investigation from my computer too!