So sorry. A professional (but like this one, unofficial) investigation by the Associated Press just found there are only 182 POTENTIALLY fraudulent votes out of >3000000 in AZ….not 74243, not 7424, not 742….but a maximum of 182 potential “bad votes”, likely < 5 actually fraudulent….and almost certainly ALL by Republicans for Trump like the rest.
I’ve explained thoroughly why the cyber ninja stunt is not an audit but is a prop for a commercial conspiracy theory movie, and why Doug Logan is not a whit trustworthy or sane, to be nice.

incite
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite

in·​cite | \ in-ˈsīt

transitive verb
: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
---------------------------------------------------

INCITE
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/incite/

To arouse; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as, to “incite” a riot Also, generally, in criminal law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with “abet” See Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N. W. 310.

Related Legal Terms & Definitions
ABET Criminal Law; to aid, help or encourage someone else to commit a crime. Commonly referred…
ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite to action; to give courage to
---------------------------------------------------


18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
---------------------------------------------------



So, the morning of...
Did he arouse the crowd?
Stir them up?
Help instigate or set in motion?

Did he encourage the crowd?
see: ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite
---------------------------------------------------

"these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer.
"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen.
"Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.
"we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.
"Our media is not free. It’s not fair. It suppresses thought. It suppresses speech, and it’s become the enemy of the people. It’s become the enemy of the people.
"We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
"Today, we see a very important event though, because right over there, right there, we see the event going to take place. And I’m going to be watching, because history is going to be made.
"You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.
"we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world, we got to get rid of them. We got to get rid of them.
"The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.
"We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again,
"They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.
"we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,...The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. (ellipses = he loves PA Ave.)

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

Some people might call that speech one that AROUSED the crowd, especially all the ask and response.
Some people might say Trump STIRRED UP the crowd
Some people might say he HELPED INSTIGATE the crowd
Some people might say he ENCOURAGED the crowd

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

ooooooooooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaayyyyyyy
whatever u say mah man, clearly you and yours have it all figured out. * eyeroll *


>>>>>>BUT WAIT!!! THERE'S MORE!<<<<<<

Twitter:

One might be tempted to say "Well he said all this shit in the morning, that's not when all this happened." True, but around 1:55 pm ALMOST IMMEDIATELY after he tweets this :

( just a link to the video of his speech again, so 2x the quotes up there )

Donald J. Trump

@realdonaldtrump

h t t p s : // t .co/izItBeFE6G

Jan 6th 2021 - 1:49:54 PM EST·Twitter for iPhone (1 49 and 54 seconds to be precise)



Here's the ALMOST IMMEDIATELY part (1:49:54 - 1:55) (almost exactly 5 minutes after his tweet)

1:55 p.m. The U.S. Capitol Police are evacuating some congressional office buildings due to “police activity” as thousands gather outside the Capitol to protest the electoral vote. Police told congressional staff members they should evacuate the Cannon House Office Building and the building that houses the Library of Congress. It wasn’t immediately clear what specifically sparked the evacuation. A police spokeswoman did not immediately respond to calls and emails seeking comment. Thousands of people have descended on the U.S. Capitol as Congress is expected to vote to affirm Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential win. Videos posted online showed protesters fighting with U.S. Capitol Police officers as police fired pepper spray to keep them back.

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.



>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<

>>>>> Do these words have no meaning to you? <<<<<
I know what encourage means. I know what stirred up means. I know what helped instigate means. I know what aroused means; when those phrases refer to a crowd.


And that's what is here.





Don't expect any more from me on this topic. Frankly I'm at a point where i don't care if you understand or not because it's right in front of you, clear as crystal.

People do not use specific words for no-reason.

incite
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite

in·​cite | \ in-ˈsīt

transitive verb
: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
---------------------------------------------------

INCITE
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/incite/

To arouse; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as, to “incite” a riot Also, generally, in criminal law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with “abet” See Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N. W. 310.

Related Legal Terms & Definitions
ABET Criminal Law; to aid, help or encourage someone else to commit a crime. Commonly referred…
ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite to action; to give courage to
---------------------------------------------------


18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
---------------------------------------------------



So, the morning of...
Did he arouse the crowd?
Stir them up?
Help instigate or set in motion?

Did he encourage the crowd?
see: ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite
---------------------------------------------------

"these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer.
"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen.
"Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.
"we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.
"Our media is not free. It’s not fair. It suppresses thought. It suppresses speech, and it’s become the enemy of the people. It’s become the enemy of the people.
"We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
"Today, we see a very important event though, because right over there, right there, we see the event going to take place. And I’m going to be watching, because history is going to be made.
"You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.
"we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world, we got to get rid of them. We got to get rid of them.
"The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.
"We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again,
"They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.
"we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,...The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. (ellipses = he loves PA Ave.)

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

Some people might call that speech one that AROUSED the crowd, especially all the ask and response.
Some people might say Trump STIRRED UP the crowd
Some people might say he HELPED INSTIGATE the crowd
Some people might say he ENCOURAGED the crowd

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

ooooooooooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaayyyyyyy
whatever u say mah man, clearly you and yours have it all figured out. * eyeroll *


>>>>>>BUT WAIT!!! THERE'S MORE!<<<<<<

Twitter:

One might be tempted to say "Well he said all this shit in the morning, that's not when all this happened." True, but around 1:55 pm ALMOST IMMEDIATELY after he tweets this :

( just a link to the video of his speech again, so 2x the quotes up there )

Donald J. Trump

@realdonaldtrump

h t t p s : // t .co/izItBeFE6G

Jan 6th 2021 - 1:49:54 PM EST·Twitter for iPhone (1 49 and 54 seconds to be precise)



Here's the ALMOST IMMEDIATELY part (1:49:54 - 1:55) (almost exactly 5 minutes after his tweet)

1:55 p.m. The U.S. Capitol Police are evacuating some congressional office buildings due to “police activity” as thousands gather outside the Capitol to protest the electoral vote. Police told congressional staff members they should evacuate the Cannon House Office Building and the building that houses the Library of Congress. It wasn’t immediately clear what specifically sparked the evacuation. A police spokeswoman did not immediately respond to calls and emails seeking comment. Thousands of people have descended on the U.S. Capitol as Congress is expected to vote to affirm Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential win. Videos posted online showed protesters fighting with U.S. Capitol Police officers as police fired pepper spray to keep them back.

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.



>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<

Im surprised this hasn't been taken down yet. The original was removed quickly after it was posted.

The below is quoted from an article in the Sporting News article...

Commissoner Rob Manfred said Thursday that MLB made a commitment to the umpires that if they agreed to wear microphones then certain interactions, like the one with Collins, would not be aired publicly.

"We promised them that. It's in the collective bargaining agreement. We had no choice in a situation like that than to do everything possible to live up to our agreement," Manfred said, per the Associated Press. "It is Labor Relations 101. To not do that is the kind of breach of trust that puts you in a bad spot over the long haul." http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/mets-terry-collins-video-umpire-argument-micd-up-noah-syndergaard-ejection/1ooltz0uohtcg1qkbc5x94ua6i

Time will tell. You are clearly more optimistic about his abilities than I.

Most Fox propaganda is available on the internet and talk radio, unavoidably since it is repeated and amplified in the hall of mirrors that is right wing media.

Um....I think we have a point of agreement here. 24 hour news networks create 'news' drama so they have something to report, I wish they didn't come into existence in the first place, and I absolutely wish they never reported opinion. If I ruled all media, I would go farther and also require the major networks to produce news as a public service instead of paying for airtime with advertising. Require it to be 1/2-1 hour of commercial free news daily, no opinion, no sponsored content, and a limit on how much Associated Press material they could use (forcing them to do at least some of their own investigations). For that service, I would give them a discount on what they pay for broadcasting rights, but fine them big time for getting facts wrong. As my pops said, you don't need to know the truth to keep from lying.

*promote

From San Francisco Chronicle's home page. And that was a feed to them from the Associated Press.
Eventually, this will apparently become a commercial---but here it is, commercial-free.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a154/emails-key-security-features-disabled-clintons-server

"The emails, reviewed by The Associated Press, show that State Department technical staff disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. They were trying urgently to resolve delivery problems with emails sent from Clinton's private server."

Wut?

Remember how they prosecuted Aaron Swartz for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

Clinton's minions had State Dep. IT turn off security features so they could debug connection issues to the server in her basement? That's... that's just...

This two-tiered justice system makes my sphincter itch.

Swiss artist H.R. Giger, who designed the creature in Ridley Scott's sci-fi horror classic Alien, has died at age 74 from injuries suffered in a fall, his museum said Tuesday.

Sandra Mivelaz, administrator of the H.R. Giger museum in Gruyeres, western Switzerland, told The Associated Press that Giger died in a hospital on Monday.

Giger's works, often showing macabre scenes of humans and machines fused into hellish hybrids, influenced a generation of movie directors and inspired an enduring fashion for "biomechanical" tattoos.

"My paintings seem to make the strongest impression on people who are, well, who are crazy," Giger said in a 1979 interview with Starlog magazine. "If they like my work they are creative ... or they are crazy."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/h-r-giger-designer-of-alien-from-alien-films-dead-at-74-1.2640867

"Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A leaked top-secret order has revealed the Obama administration is conducting a massive domestic surveillance program by collecting telephone records of millions of Verizon Business customers. Last night The Guardian newspaper published a classified order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court directing Verizon’s Business Network Services to give the National Security Agency electronic data, including all calling records on a, quote, "ongoing, daily basis." The order covers each phone number dialed by all customers along with location and routing data, and with the duration and frequency of the calls, but not the content of the communications. The order expressly compels Verizon to turn over records for both international and domestic records. It also forbids Verizon from disclosing the existence of the court order. It is unclear if other phone companies were ordered to hand over similar information.

AMY GOODMAN: According to legal analysts, the Obama administration relied on a controversial provision in the USA PATRIOT Act, Section 215, that authorizes the government to seek secret court orders for the production of, quote, "any tangible thing relevant to a foreign intelligence or terrorism investigation." The disclosure comes just weeks after news broke that the Obama administration had been spying on journalists from the Associated Press and James Rosen, a reporter from Fox News.

We’re now joined by two former employees of the National Security Agency, Thomas Drake and William Binney. In 2010, the Obama administration charged Drake with violating the Espionage Act after he was accused of leaking classified information to the press about waste and mismanagement at the agency. The charges were later dropped. William Binney worked for almost 40 years at the NSA. He resigned shortly after the September 11th attacks over his concern over the increasing surveillance of Americans. We’re also joined in studio here by Shayana Kadidal, senior managing attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

First, for your legal opinion, Shayana, can you talk about the significance of what has just been revealed?

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Sure. So I think, you know, we have had stories, including one in USA Today in May 2006, that have said that the government is collecting basically all the phone records from a number of large telephone companies. What’s significant about yesterday’s disclosure is that it’s the first time that we’ve seen the order, to really appreciate the sort of staggeringly broad scope of what one of the judges on this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved of, and the first time that we can now confirm that this was under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which, you know, has been dubbed the libraries provision, because people were mostly worried about the idea that the government would use it to get library records. Now we know that they’re using it to get phone records. And just to see the immense scope of this warrant order, you know, when most warrants are very narrow, is really shocking as a lawyer.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, some might argue that the Obama administration at least went to the FISA court to get approval for this, unlike the Bush administration in the past.

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Right. Well, we don’t know if the Bush administration was, you know, getting these same orders and if this is just a continuation, a renewal order. It lasted for only—it’s supposed to last for only three months, but they may have been getting one every three months since 2006 or even earlier. You know, when Congress reapproved this authority in 2011, you know, one of the things Congress thought was, well, at least they’ll have to present these things to a judge and get some judicial review, and Congress will get some reporting of the total number of orders. But when one order covers every single phone record for a massive phone company like Verizon, the reporting that gets to Congress is going to be very hollow. And then, similarly, you know, when the judges on the FISA court are handpicked by the chief justice, and the government can go to a judge, as they did here, in North Florida, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, who’s 73 years old and is known as a draconian kind of hanging judge in his sentencing, and get some order that’s this broad, I think both the judicial review and the congressional oversight checks are very weak.

AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, this is just Verizon, because that’s what Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian got a hold of. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t other orders for the other telephone companies, right?

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: Like BellSouth, like AT&T, etc.

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: As there have been in the past.

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Yeah, those were—those were companies mentioned in that USA Today story in 2006. Nothing about the breadth of this order indicates that it’s tied to any particular national security investigation, as the statute says it has to be. So, some commentators yesterday said, "Well, this order came out on—you know, it’s dated 10 days after the Boston attacks." But it’s forward-looking. It goes forward for three months. Why would anyone need to get every record from Verizon Business in order to investigate the Boston bombings after they happened?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, William Binney, a decades-long veteran of the NSA, your reaction when you heard about this news?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, this was just the FBI going after data. That was their request. And they’re doing that because they—if they want to try to get it—they have to have it approved by a court in order to get it as evidence into a courtroom. But NSA has been doing all this stuff all along, and it’s been all the companies, not just one. And I basically looked at that and said, well, if Verizon got one, so did everybody else, which means that, you know, they’re just continuing the collection of this kind of information on all U.S. citizens. That’s one of the main reasons they couldn’t tell Senator Wyden, with his request of how many U.S. citizens are in the NSA databases. There’s just—in my estimate, it was—if you collapse it down to all uniques, it’s a little over 280 million U.S. citizens are in there, each in there several hundred to several thousand times.

AMY GOODMAN: In fact, let’s go to Senator Wyden. A secret court order to obtain the Verizon phone records was sought by the FBI under a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that was expanded by the PATRIOT Act. In 2011, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden warned about how the government was interpreting its surveillance powers under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

SEN. RON WYDEN: When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the PATRIOT Act, they are going to be stunned, and they are going to be angry. And they’re going asked senators, "Did you know what this law actually permits? Why didn’t you know before you voted on it?" The fact is, anyone can read the plain text of the PATRIOT Act, and yet many members of Congress have no idea how the law is being secretly interpreted by the executive branch, because that interpretation is classified. It’s almost as if there were two PATRIOT Acts, and many members of Congress have not read the one that matters. Our constituents, of course, are totally in the dark. Members of the public have no access to the secret legal interpretations, so they have no idea what their government believes the law actually means.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Senator Ron Wyden. He and Senator Udall have been raising concerns because they sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee but cannot speak out openly exactly about what they know. William Binney, you left the agency after September 2001, deeply concerned—this is after you’d been there for 40 years—about the amount of surveillance of U.S. citizens. In the end, your house was raided. You were in the shower. You’re a diabetic amputee. The authorities had a gun at your head. Which agency had the gun at your head, by the way?

WILLIAM BINNEY: That was the FBI.

AMY GOODMAN: You were not charged, though you were terrorized. Can you link that to what we’re seeing today?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, it’s directly linked, because it has to do with all of the surveillance of the U.S. citizens that’s been going on since 9/11. I mean, that’s—they were getting—from just one company alone, that I knew of, they were getting over 300 million call records a day on U.S. citizens. So, I mean, and when you add the rest of the companies in, my estimate was that there were probably three billion phone records collected every day on U.S. citizens. So, over time, that’s a little over 12 trillion in their databases since 9/11. And that’s just phones; that doesn’t count the emails. And they’re avoiding talking about emails there, because that’s also collecting content of what people are saying. And that’s in the databases that NSA has and that the FBI taps into. It also tells you how closely they’re related. When the FBI asks for data and the court approves it, the data is sent to NSA, because they’ve got all the algorithms to do the diagnostics and community reconstructions and things like that, so that the FBI can—makes it easier for the FBI to interpret what’s in there.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We’re also joined by Thomas Drake, who was prosecuted by the Obama administration after he blew the whistle on mismanagement and waste and constitutional violations at the NSA. Thomas Drake, your reaction to this latest revelation?

THOMAS DRAKE: My reaction? Where has the mainstream media been? This is routine. These are routine orders. This is nothing new. What’s new is we’re actually seeing an actual order. And people are somehow surprised by it. The fact remains that this program has been in place for quite some time. It was actually started shortly after 9/11. The PATRIOT Act was the enabling mechanism that allowed the United States government in secret to acquire subscriber records of—from any company that exists in the United States.

I think what people are now realizing is that this isn’t just a terrorist issue. This is simply the ability of the government in secret, on a vast scale, to collect any and all phone call records, including domestic to domestic, local, as well as location information. We might—there’s no need now to call this the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Let’s just call it the surveillance court. It’s no longer about foreign intelligence. It’s simply about harvesting millions and millions and millions of phone call records and beyond. And this is only just Verizon. As large as Verizon is, with upwards of 100 million subscribers, what about all the other telecoms? What about all the other Internet service providers? It’s become institutionalized in this country, in the greatest of secrecy, for the government to classify, conceal not only the facts of the surveillance, but also the secret laws that are supporting surveillance.

AMY GOODMAN: Thomas Drake, what can they do with this information, what’s called metadata? I mean, they don’t have the content of the conversation, supposedly—or maybe we just don’t see that, that’s under another request, because, remember, we are just seeing this one, for people who are listening and watching right now, this one request that is specifically to—and I also want to ask you: It’s Verizon Business Services; does that have any significance? But what does it mean to have the length of time and not the names of, but where the call originates and where it is going, the phone numbers back and forth?

THOMAS DRAKE: You get incredible amounts of information about subscribers. It’s basically the ability to forward-profile, as well as look backwards, all activities associated with those phone numbers, and not only just the phone numbers and who you called and who called you, but also the community of interests beyond that, who they were calling. I mean, we’re talking about a phenomenal set of records that is continually being added to, aggregated, year after year and year, on what have now become routine orders. Now, you add the location information, that’s a tracking mechanism, monitoring tracking of all phone calls that are being made by individuals. I mean, this is an extraordinary breach. I’ve said this for years. Our representing attorney, Jesselyn Radack from the Government Accountability Project, we’ve been saying this for years and no—from the wilderness. We’ve had—you’ve been on—you know, you’ve had us on your show in the past, but it’s like, hey, everybody kind of went to sleep, you know, while the government is harvesting all these records on a routine basis.

You’ve got to remember, none of this is probable cause. This is simply the ability to collect. And as I was told shortly after 9/11, "You don’t understand, Mr. Drake. We just want the data." And so, the secret surveillance regime really has a hoarding complex, and they can’t get enough of it. And so, here we’re faced with the reality that a government in secret, in abject violation of the Fourth Amendment, under the cover of enabling act legislation for the past 12 years, is routinely analyzing what is supposed to be private information. But, hey, it doesn’t matter anymore, right? Because we can get to it. We have secret agreements with the telecoms and Internet service providers and beyond. And we can do with the data anything we want.

So, you know, I sit here—I sit here as an American, as I did shortly after 9/11, and it’s all déjà vu for me. And then I was targeted—it’s important to note, I—not just for massive fraud, waste and abuse; I was specifically targeted as the source for The New York Times article that came out in December of 2005. They actually thought that I was the secret source regarding the secret surveillance program. Ultimately, I was charged under the Espionage Act. So that should tell you something. Sends an extraordinarily chilling message. It is probably the deepest, darkest secret of both administrations, greatly expanded under the Obama administration. It’s now routine practice.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Shayana, I’d like to ask you, specifically that issue of the FISA court also authorizing domestic surveillance. I mean, is there—even with the little laws that we have left, is there any chance for that to be challenged, that the FISA court is now also authorizing domestic records being surveiled?

AMY GOODMAN: FISA being Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Right. I mean, you know, two things about that. First, the statute says that there have to be reasonable grounds to think that this information is relevant to an investigation of either foreign terrorist activity or something to do with a foreign power. So, you know, obviously, this perhaps very compliant judge approved this order, but it doesn’t seem like this is what Congress intended these orders would look like. Seems like, on the statute, that Congress intended they would be somewhat narrower than this, right?

But there’s a larger question, which is that, for years, the Supreme Court, since 1979, has said, "We don’t have the same level of protection over, you know, the calling records—the numbers that we dial and how long those calls are and when they happen—as we do over the contents of a phone call, where the government needs a warrant." So everyone assumes the government needs a warrant to get at your phone records and maybe at your emails, but it’s not true. They just basically need a subpoena under existing doctrine. And so, the government uses these kind of subpoenas to get your email records, your web surfing records, you know, cloud—documents in cloud storage, banking records, credit records. For all these things, they can get these extraordinarily broad subpoenas that don’t even need to go through a court.

AMY GOODMAN: Shayana, talk about the significance of President Obama nominating James Comey to be the head of the FBI—

SHAYANA KADIDAL: One of the—

AMY GOODMAN: —and who he was.

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Right. One of the grand ironies is that Obama has nominated a Republican who served in the Bush administration for a long time, a guy with a reputation as being kind of personally incorruptable. I think, in part, he nominated him to be the head of the FBI, the person who would, you know, be responsible for seeking and renewing these kind of orders in the future, for the next 10 years—he named Comey, a Republican, because he wanted to, I think, distract from the phone record scandal, the fact that Holder’s Justice Department has gone after the phone records of the Associated Press and of Fox News reporter James Rosen, right?

And you asked, what can you tell from these numbers? Well, if you see the reporter called, you know, five or six of his favorite sources and then wrote a particular report that divulged some embarrassing government secret, that’s—you know, that’s just as good as hearing what the reporter was saying over the phone line. And so, we had this huge, you know, scandal over the fact that the government went after the phone records of AP, when now we know they’re going after everyone’s phone records, you know. And I think one of the grand ironies is that, you know, he named Comey because he had this reputation as being kind of a stand-up guy, who stood up to Bush in John Ashcroft’s hospital room in 2004 and famously said, "We have to cut back on what the NSA is doing." But what the NSA was doing was probably much broader than what The New York Times finally divulged in that story in December ’05.

AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, will Glenn Greenwald now be investigated, of The Guardian, who got the copy of this, so that they can find his leak, not to mention possibly prosecute him?

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Oh, I think absolutely there will be some sort of effort to go after him punitively. The government rarely tries to prosecute people who are recognized as journalists. And so, Julian Assange maybe is someone they try to portray as not a journalist. Glenn Greenwald, I think, would be harder to do. But there are ways of going after them punitively that don’t involve prosecution, like going after their phone records so their sources dry up.

AMY GOODMAN: I saw an astounding comment by Pete Williams, who used to be the Pentagon spokesperson, who’s now with NBC, this morning, talking—he had talked with Attorney General Eric Holder, who had said, when he goes after the reporters—you know, the AP reporters, the Fox reporter—they’re not so much going after them; not to worry, they’re going after the whistleblowers. They’re trying to get, through them, the people. What about that, that separation of these two?

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Right. I’ll give you an example from the AP. They had a reporter named, I believe, John Solomon. In 2000, he reported a story about the botched investigation into Robert Torricelli. The FBI didn’t like the fact that they had written this—he had written this story about how they dropped the ball on that, so they went after his phone records. And three years later, he talked to some of his sources who had not talked to him since then, and they said, "We’re not going to talk to you, because we know they’re getting your phone records."

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you all for being with us. Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights. William Binney and Thomas Drake both worked for the National Security Agency for years, and both ultimately resigned. Thomas Drake was prosecuted. They were trying to get him under the Espionage Act. All of those charges were dropped. William Binney held at gunpoint by the FBI in his shower, never prosecuted. Both had expressed deep concern about the surveillance of American citizens by the U.S. government. You can go to our website at democracynow.org for our hours of interviews with them, as well." - Democracy Now!

Ya know I was a kid when the riots broke out and I had to miss a Birthday party because we were too scared in our homes of the riots in SoCal. I've heard everything about Rodney King my whole life, people telling me this and that, making jokes about it news articles and such. I read a BBC article on the day he died and they said that as a result of the beatings he suffered brain damage. No News Channel or article I've ever read has ever mentioned that, almost like they were trying to sow distrust of this guy who's whining about the cops beating him.

I even compared the BBC article with the Associated Press article, no mention of brain damage just a graphic description of the beating. I guess they don't understand that a stupid racist decision can have long term effects.

"Yippee yo, you know this kid? I said I didn't but I know he did."

And in Paul Revere's own words,

"It began," he writes, when "it was observed, that a number of [British] Soldiers were marching towards the bottom of the Common. About 10 o'Clock, Dr. Warren Sent in great haste for me, and beged that I would imediately Set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock & Adams were, and acquaint them of the Movement, and that it was thought they were the objets."

And then he offers this account of being captured and telling the British that there was a militia waiting for them:

"I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back, and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from, & what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up."

[All copy "as is" except the bold, which we inserted to highlight the line.]

The Associated Press adds that "Revere was probably bluffing the soldiers about the size of any advancing militia, since he had no way of knowing, according to Joel J. Miller, author of The Revolutionary Paul Revere. And while he made bells, Revere would never have rung any on that famous night because the Redcoats were under orders to round up people just like him. 'He was riding off as quickly and as quietly as possible,' Miller said. 'Paul Revere did not want the Redcoats to know of his mission at all.' "

Indeed, Revere says elsewhere in the letter that "it was then a common opinion, that there was a Traytor in the provincial Congress, & that [Gen.] Gage was posessed of all their Secrets."

Tags for this video have been changed from 'iraqi, journalist, throws, shoe, bush, iraq, size, 10, duck, sole' to 'iraqi, journalist, shoe, bush, iraq, size 10, duck, evade, incoming, associated press' - edited by BoneRemake

Those of you that aren't in the know, here is a breakdown of what's happened since they began releasing these documents:(provided by The Guardian)

Sunday 28 November

• TECH: DDoS attack hits WikiLeaks as first set of US diplomatic cables is published.

Wednesday 1 December

• TECH: Tableau Software, which offers free software for data visualisation, removes the public views of graphics built using information about the diplomatic cables. It is the first company to distance itself from Wikileaks, and admits that the reason was pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent senator with ties to the Democratic party.

• POLITICS: Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security, calls for Wikileaks to be taken offline. "I call on any other company or organization that is hosting Wikileaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them. Wikileaks' illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world. No responsible company - whether American or foreign - should assist Wikileaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials."

• TECH Amazon removes Wikileaks's content from its EC2 cloud service, but later insists it did so because the content could cause harm to people and did not belong to Wikileaks – and that it was not due to political pressure or the hacker attacks against the site.

Friday 3 December

• TECH: Wikileaks.org ceases to work for web users after everyDNS.com(*edit* not easyDNS), which had provided a free routing service translating the human-readable address into a machine-readable form, ends support.

Wikileaks shifts to a backup domain registered in Switzerland but actually hosted in Sweden, at Wikileaks.ch, though the cables are hosted in part by OVH, an internet provider in the north of France.

EveryDNS claims that the DDOS attacks against Wikileaks were disrupting its service provided to thousands of other customers. (*edit* there was a mixup, and everyDNS, not easyDNS was resonsible. EasyDNS has posted that it's "The Company That Did NOT Take Down Wikileaks" beside a cartoon character showing a thumbs up.

• POLITICS: French industry minister Eric Besson writes to internet companies warning them there will be "consequences" for any companies or organisations helping to keep WikiLeaks online in the country.

Saturday 4 December

• MONEY: PayPal, owned by US auction site eBay, permanently restricts account used by WikiLeaks due to a "violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy". A spokesman said the account was suspended because "[it] cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity."
You can still donate at Commerzbank Kassel in Germnany or Landsbanki in Iceland or by post to a post office box at the University of Melbourne or at http://wikileaks.ch/support.html

• TECH: Switch, the Swiss registrar for Wikileaks.ch declines pressure from US and French authorities to remove the site or block access to it.

Sunday 5 December

• TECH: The Pirate Party in Sweden says that it has taken over the hosting of the Cablegate directory of Wikileaks after the server in France at OVH, which had been hosting the contents of the US diplomatic cables released so far, goes offline.

Monday 6 December

• MONEY: Credit card company Mastercard withdraws ability to make donations to Wikileaks. "MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products," the credit card outfit says.

• TECH: Wikileaks' servers in Sweden attacked by distributed denial of service attack.

• MONEY: Postfinance, the Swiss postal system, strips WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of a key fundraising tool, accusing him of lying and immediately shutting down one of his bank accounts. The bank says that Assange had "provided false information regarding his place of residence during the account opening process."
Assange had told Postfinance he lived in Geneva but could offer no proof that he was a Swiss resident, a requirement of opening such an account. Postfinance spokesman Alex Josty told The Associated Press the account was closed Monday afternoon and there would be "no criminal consequences" for misleading authorities. "That's his money, he will get his money back," Josty said. "We just close the account and that's it."

Tuesday 7 December

• MONEY: Credit card company Visa withdraws ability to make donations or payments to Wikileaks. "Visa Europe has taken action to suspend Visa payment acceptance on WikiLeaks' website pending further investigation into the nature of its business and whether it contravenes Visa operating rules," said a spokesman.

You're taking what I said wayyyyyyy out of context. I said it was typical of sensationalized Internet media to take something and make it far worse than it actually is/was. I do not and will not consider what happened in that video to be stomping on someones head, but as proven here, that can be argued. I do, however, feel it was out of line and the people responsible should be investigated.

This is why it's nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation with people these days. You can say whatever you want, and that's that. Nothing is open for discussion or disagreement anymore.

Objective fact? She wasn't curb stomped nor was her head stomped on, at all. Saying so, and claiming that to be the case and calling it objective fact is a lie. I could agree with you if you said someone stepped on her neck, but stomped? No.

Objective judgment? Possibly. It is of my judgment that they went too far in what they did to her. That said, at least I'm honest about my objective judgment and am willing to admit that's what it is. I suppose others could say they didn't go far enough in what they did to her, which would make my opinion on this a judgment call.

In the end, what I said makes you mad? You got mad at me because you disagree with my opinion that I consider what actually went down versus how you titled it to be sensationalized? That's truly sad. I thought better of you, but I guess you're like the typical majority of Internet opinion makers -- if I disagree with you, you get mad at me for it. Oh well.

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hPOD" title="member since August 6th, 2010" class="profilelink">hPOD ahh, so instead of titling it with objective fact, I should title it with subjective judgment?
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK, umm, my title should be funny? I think "roughs up" is inaccurate (I usually think of that as involving multiple strikes), I think "assaults" has a legal connotation, I think "pushes down" isn't what all the fuss is about, and you're the one bringing up crazy things that didn't happen (rape & murder).
To both of you, just google Lauren Valle, and look at the press headlines describing this event. Most include the word "stomp", including the current embed from the Associated Press. The ones that don't aren't really any less inflammatory. Many use the verb "attacked", one said "brutally attacked", another said "kicked in the head", and a student newspaper even called it "A Crack of the Skull 'Heard Around the World'".
The most mild I've seen is "stepped on" her head, but I'd say that implies that it was unintentional, and it clearly was no accident.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
With alllll that being said, what happened here was completely shitty. I almost hate that the title is so much of an issue more than what has actually happened.

Here's what really makes me mad, at both you and hPOD, frankly. You are the ones making a federal case out of the word choice in my title, rather than focusing on the act itself.
You are the ones who feel you need to come and express concern for my immortal soul because of the horrors of my base and vile dishonesty -- in copying my fucking title from a professional news outlet that was being more fastidious about its facts than most.
Condemn the guy who stomped on the woman's head, not me for calling it a stomp.

@hPOD ahh, so instead of titling it with objective fact, I should title it with subjective judgment?

@GeeSussFreeK, umm, my title should be funny? I think "roughs up" is inaccurate (I usually think of that as involving multiple strikes), I think "assaults" has a legal connotation, I think "pushes down" isn't what all the fuss is about, and you're the one bringing up crazy things that didn't happen (rape & murder).

To both of you, just google Lauren Valle, and look at the press headlines describing this event. Most include the word "stomp", including the current embed from the Associated Press. The ones that don't aren't really any less inflammatory. Many use the verb "attacked", one said "brutally attacked", another said "kicked in the head", and a student newspaper even called it "A Crack of the Skull 'Heard Around the World'".

The most mild I've seen is "stepped on" her head, but I'd say that implies that it was unintentional, and it clearly was no accident.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
With alllll that being said, what happened here was completely shitty. I almost hate that the title is so much of an issue more than what has actually happened.

Here's what really makes me mad, at both you and hPOD, frankly. You are the ones making a federal case out of the word choice in my title, rather than focusing on the act itself.

You are the ones who feel you need to come and express concern for my immortal soul because of the horrors of my base and vile dishonesty -- in copying my fucking title from a professional news outlet that was being more fastidious about its facts than most.

Condemn the guy who stomped on the woman's head, not me for calling it a stomp.