6 votes

Senators skip classified briefing on NSA snooping to catch flights home

The Senate held its last vote of the week a little after noon on Thursday, and many lawmakers were eager to take advantage of the short day and head back to their home states for Father’s Day weekend.

Only 47 of 100 senators attended the 2:30 briefing, leaving dozens of chairs in the secure meeting room empty as Clapper, Alexander and other senior officials told lawmakers about classified programs to monitor millions of telephone calls and broad swaths of Internet activity. The room on the lower level of the Capitol Visitor Center is large enough to fit the entire Senate membership, according to a Senate aide.

The Hill was not provided the names of who did, and who didn't, attend the briefing............. This later in the article goes on to name only one Senator who was seen leaving?? Three guesses who they name. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/305765-senators-skip-clas...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He left, and?

The article is very misleading in every way.

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the chief critics of the surveillance programs, was spotted leaving the briefing."

Earlier in the article they mention that many were leaving during the briefing. They leave it up to the reader to infer that Rand left during, rather than after it was over. Mentioning that he was leaving, implies that he was, in fact, there and not one of the 53 who don't care enough to attend, who they also trash in the article.

Perhaps Rand did leave early, before he heard anything he already knew, and was prevented from speaking about it?

Now the FBI can say "we tried to tell them, they don't care, so it must be ok"

Just open the box and see

MY

Point was why target only one senator... They must be really afraid of him.

Agree

I didn't intend critique of the post itself, but that their article was misleading in almost every way.

Except of course, your point, of specifically trying to attack Rand with it. ;) (miserable fail, IMO)

MSM logic is so twisted these days, it's nearly impossible to follow at all.

Just open the box and see

"if you dont care about our

"if you dont care about our concerns, then i dont care about you keeping your "jobs""

From the people, to the "representatives"

Whatever they are told, they can't reveal

I wonder if the Senators would be prosecuted under the gag rule if they wrote a law to prevent the NSA from wiretapping and eavesdropping on Americans. After all, the law would be an admission that the NSA is wiretapping and eavesdropping, and that would be illegal to acknowledge...
Catch 22?

Gag them with a spoon

You hit the nail on the head, Johnson. If Rand discovers "things", he is free to discuss and sue the omnipotent state over them. If Totalitarian Feinstein divulges "things" to Rand Paul, he would be be bound by a gag rule.

Nadler tricked the omnipotent state by getting the head of the FBI to tell him under oath, information about the NSA reading e-mails or not, as far as he knows, is not legally confidential.

He went on to divulge publicly that certain NSA employees were reading e-mails without any additional intervention from the courts.

That's a violation of the 4th Amendment, not to mention, politicians have been all over the media claiming that nobody is looking at their e-mails, including the President.

But now, my virus protection has crashed and now the video seems to have vanished from the internet. Anybody download the video?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

You actually just made me

You actually just made me think of this

In being partial

What if they are giving the senators the runaround, in that given situation, really wanting the answers and seing i would likely never get them, it would probably pass my mind then, whats the point of being here

Theres not many excuses for them leaving, and that one is just borderline acceptable, unless they had good intentioned plans, i dont see why you would not sit through the whole thing at least, just to make sure somethings not "decided" or "established" without your knowledge, due to leaving a meeting you were in, early

Im not gonna discount the possibility for good reasons, but something like THIS, for this, some exceptions should be made, UNLESS for VERY good reasons

Whatever they are told, they can't reveal

I wonder if the Senators would be prosecuted under the gag rule if they wrote a law to prevent the NSA from wiretapping and eavesdropping on Americans. After all, the law would be an admission that the NSA is wiretapping and eavesdropping, and that would be illegal to acknowledge...
Catch 22?

Big deal.

They can catch the white house talking points on MSM when they get home.

Get your preps together! Learn historic food storage and preservation methods and the science that makes them work now, start saving money and the future