Rand Paul, a well-known Tea Party member and Republican senator from Kentucky, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against President Barack Obama and heads of government agencies connected with the National Security Agency’s publicized bulk collection program, seeking to have it declared unconstitutional.While not the sole lawsuit being filed on the issue, it is one of the more pulbic ones. This made what came next — his second plagiarization scandal in as many years — that much more unfortunate for the senator.
we see the fervor with which they roll out their attacks now it has gotten to the point of mindless assaults accusing everything and everybody but themselves of lawlessness, seems funny coming from those who have cultivated that action like Clinton said, "takes a lot of brass to accuse someone of what you do",
my theory they have nothing new and can't seem to do better than dragging out what they are most familiar with, their own dirt.
Paul’s lawyer, Ken Cuccinelli, worked with Bruce Fein, an ex-Reagan administration lawyer, in writing up the suit. Now, both Fein and his spokeswoman — a role filled by his ex-wife — are insisting that not only has Fein not been fully paid for his work but that the suit — filed under Cuccinelli’s name — has stolen credit for his work without giving proper recognition for his work and writing.“I am aghast and shocked by Ken Cuccinelli’s behavior and his absolute knowledge that this entire complaint was the work product, intellectual property and legal genius of Bruce Fein. Ken Cuccinelli stole the suit,” said Mattie Fein, Fein’s spokeswoman, to the Washington Post. She also pointed out that Paul has “already had one plagiarism issue,” and “now has a lawyer who just takes another lawyer’s work product.”The Obama administration, for its part, is standing by the legality of the program, despite having made its own efforts toward curtailing the surveillance of the NSA in recent months. According to the Times,a 1979 Supreme Court case decision held that “metadata,” meaning information about call history but not content of the calls themselves, are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. “We remain confident that the program is legal, as at least 15 judges have previously found,” said Peter Carr, a Department of Justice spokesman, according to the New York Times.
really why would anyone want people of such questionable character to be in charge of their daily lives and what they can and cannot do, while taking all installed protection agencies out of service, the ones that keep us protected from them.
Americans need to drop this separation BS we are all in the same barrel if we let them back in, those who carries their water will also have a place in the barrel just closer to the top they'll go in last because they need them to vote. unwitting advocates or just following the vitriolic trail left by the red meat feedings?
