In the last press conference of the year, President Obama indicated he may order changes to the National Security Agency’s programs that gather and store the phone communications records of millions of Americans, and instead "require phone companies to hold the data.
Obama also sais ... NSA leaker and former contractor Edward Snowden “is under indictment.”
Later Caitlin Hayden, the National Security Council spokeswoman at the White House, confirmed that Snowden is not under an indictment.
So ,,,,,was President Obama leaking news of a secret indictment against Snowden or just telling folks another lie ?
In the last press conference of the year, President Obama indicated he may order changes to the National Security Agency’s programs that gather and store the phone communications records of millions of Americans, and instead "require phone companies to hold the data.
Obama also sais ... NSA leaker and former contractor Edward Snowden “is under indictment.”
Later Caitlin Hayden, the National Security Council spokeswoman at the White House, confirmed that Snowden is not under an indictment.
So ,,,,,was President Obama leaking news of a secret indictment against Snowden or just telling folks another lie ?
Bws is sadly correct. America at large is too busy with stuffing their faces and trampling people at the shopping mall to care about revalations of the single largest civil rights violation in the past 40 years.
People that support Obama will carry the water for him not realizing that they are defending a Bush era abuse.
Obama slipping up and revealing a "secret indictment" is frigging huge news.
Bws is sadly correct. America at large is too busy with stuffing their faces and trampling people at the shopping mall to care about revalations of the single largest civil rights violation in the past 40 years.
People that support Obama will carry the water for him not realizing that they are defending a Bush era abuse.
Obama slipping up and revealing a "secret indictment" is frigging huge news.
From a purely technical standpoint, they could both be right depending on how one views 'under indictment.'
One can be under the indictment process whereby information is being gathered to be presented to a grand jury.
Only after the information is presented and the grand jury concludes that there is enough evidence to 'indict' one is actually 'indicted.'
Djbrow, can we agree that being under the "indictment process" is not the same as "under indictment "...?
The National Security Council is chaired by the President and the NSC spokeswoman at the White House, confirmed that Snowden is not under an indictment....someone is wrong .. The President or the NSC spokesperson ...that is unless President Obama leaked an indictment that is under seal..
..and if an indictment is not under seal ...then the way I see it Snowden is not "under indictment "...but if it is a sealed indictment, why?
From a purely technical standpoint, they could both be right depending on how one views 'under indictment.'
One can be under the indictment process whereby information is being gathered to be presented to a grand jury.
Only after the information is presented and the grand jury concludes that there is enough evidence to 'indict' one is actually 'indicted.'
Djbrow, can we agree that being under the "indictment process" is not the same as "under indictment "...?
The National Security Council is chaired by the President and the NSC spokeswoman at the White House, confirmed that Snowden is not under an indictment....someone is wrong .. The President or the NSC spokesperson ...that is unless President Obama leaked an indictment that is under seal..
..and if an indictment is not under seal ...then the way I see it Snowden is not "under indictment "...but if it is a sealed indictment, why?
Djbrow, can we agree that being under the "indictment process" is not the same as "under indictment "...?
No we can't because they can be the same. Its just verbiage. The actual process of gathering information and presenting to the GJ would place the Defendant 'under indictment' and also part of the indictment process.
As for it being under seal, I would be shocked if it was not. The indictment process is already a painfully secret proceeding and this would also involve matters of national security.
Djbrow, can we agree that being under the "indictment process" is not the same as "under indictment "...?
No we can't because they can be the same. Its just verbiage. The actual process of gathering information and presenting to the GJ would place the Defendant 'under indictment' and also part of the indictment process.
As for it being under seal, I would be shocked if it was not. The indictment process is already a painfully secret proceeding and this would also involve matters of national security.
"Its just verbiage"...........coded lawyer speak ..
So,, I'm going to believe that Obama spilled the beans on this one and Snowden is "under Indictment",.........because President Obama wouldn't come right out and brazenly tell a bold-face lie to the American folk (people)..
"Its just verbiage"...........coded lawyer speak ..
So,, I'm going to believe that Obama spilled the beans on this one and Snowden is "under Indictment",.........because President Obama wouldn't come right out and brazenly tell a bold-face lie to the American folk (people)..
"Its just verbiage"...........coded lawyer speak ..
So,, I'm going to believe that Obama spilled the beans on this one and Snowden is "under Indictment",.........because President Obama wouldn't come right out and brazenly tell a bold-face lie to the American folk (people)..
My guess is that they are gathering information which will be presented to a Grand Jury and Obama was essentially saying that. I have no idea why he would even bring it up, however. As I have said, the Grand Jury proceedings are secretive anyway.
"Its just verbiage"...........coded lawyer speak ..
So,, I'm going to believe that Obama spilled the beans on this one and Snowden is "under Indictment",.........because President Obama wouldn't come right out and brazenly tell a bold-face lie to the American folk (people)..
My guess is that they are gathering information which will be presented to a Grand Jury and Obama was essentially saying that. I have no idea why he would even bring it up, however. As I have said, the Grand Jury proceedings are secretive anyway.
My guess is that they are gathering information which will be presented to a Grand Jury and Obama was essentially saying that. I have no idea why he would even bring it up, however. As I have said, the Grand Jury proceedings are secretive anyway.
That sounds about right ..but it was breach of protocol on Obama's part to say that ..so what we have here is Obama leaking news of a secret indictment against a leaker...lol
My guess is that they are gathering information which will be presented to a Grand Jury and Obama was essentially saying that. I have no idea why he would even bring it up, however. As I have said, the Grand Jury proceedings are secretive anyway.
That sounds about right ..but it was breach of protocol on Obama's part to say that ..so what we have here is Obama leaking news of a secret indictment against a leaker...lol
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.