|
|
|
This topic is archived. |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
|
| Dufaeth
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:09 AM Original message |
| Did Clinton spy on US citizens? |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| billybob537
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:10 AM Response to Original message |
| 1. only Monica. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Greybnk48
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:11 AM Response to Original message |
| 2. After Ken Starr and his cronies got done with the Clinton's |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| yellowcanine
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:12 AM Response to Original message |
| 3. You have to have a citation if you are going to make a claim like that. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Dufaeth
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:16 AM Response to Reply #3 |
| 6. All i can find are second hand references. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| papau
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:14 AM Response to Original message |
| 4. The Ames story is of a physical search for security reasons and at the |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Dufaeth
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:17 AM Response to Reply #4 |
| 8. Did the physical search happen before the amendment passed? |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| papau
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:20 AM Response to Reply #8 |
| 14. The search was in 93, the bill was passed in 94. :-) |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| seabeyond
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:20 AM Response to Reply #4 |
| 11. thank you for making so clear. i have read document a couple |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Dufaeth
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:22 AM Response to Reply #4 |
| 17. So physical searches were legal until the amendment closed the |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| papau
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:36 AM Response to Reply #17 |
| 21. National Security physical searches were not covered by FISA until 94. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Cassandra
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:15 AM Response to Original message |
| 5. Only when a warrant was not required at the time. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| stanwyck
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:16 AM Response to Original message |
| 7. Ah. The "look over here" |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Dufaeth
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:20 AM Response to Reply #7 |
| 10. Sorry, |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| seabeyond
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:21 AM Response to Reply #10 |
| 15. it doesnt hurt to be informed. further, it is a good thing |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| stanwyck
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:28 AM Response to Reply #10 |
| 18. I apologize |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Dufaeth
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:30 AM Response to Reply #18 |
| 19. I appreciate it |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| abluelady
|
Wed Dec-21-05 11:02 AM Response to Reply #10 |
| 24. And As I Always Said to My Kids |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Freedom_Aflaim
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:20 AM Response to Reply #7 |
| 12. Its worth asking the question so it can be answered |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| expatriot
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:19 AM Response to Original message |
| 9. Bush's spying is unwarranted and warrantless. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Walt Starr
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:20 AM Response to Original message |
| 13. No, he didn't n/t |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| shifting_sands
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:22 AM Response to Original message |
| 16. Clinton spied |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Blue_Roses
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:36 AM Response to Original message |
| 20. no, he didn't need to |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| pocket
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:38 AM Response to Original message |
| 22. his AAG says yes |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| CabalPowered
|
Wed Dec-21-05 10:39 AM Response to Original message |
| 23. I just saw this on the yahoo boards.. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| kentuck
|
Wed Dec-21-05 11:04 AM Response to Original message |
| 25. I doubt it.... |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Norquist Nemesis
|
Wed Dec-21-05 11:06 AM Response to Original message |
| 26. If he did, he got away with it |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Scout1071
|
Wed Dec-21-05 11:38 AM Response to Original message |
| 27. Think Progress totally debunks it here: |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| CabalPowered
|
Wed Dec-21-05 12:00 PM Response to Reply #27 |
| 28. thanks! nt |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat Feb 14th 2026, 05:02 PM Response to Original message |
| Advertisements [?] |
| Top |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
|
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC