Ex drug-addict alcoholic john, like Congress would be if they got caught?

I know you’d like to see Janet Napolitano as AG or Senator. I know of some instances where the Republican incumbent in the Senate is being challenged by Democratic lawyers with significant legislative and criminal litigation experience that would make you happy if they won and got onto SJC.

I agree. And I’d like to see Congress humiliated for attempting this “special carve out,” with illogical rationale. If the risk inherent to suits is too great to permit the suit, then where is the repeal? I won’t go though the other rationales proffered, but none of them is worth spit, if analyzed logically, except on the rock bottom basis of “nobody has any right to examine my surveillance activity.”

Your remarks about rights of action under contract or state privacy regulations also have merit. Contract more, I think. I don’t see a way to permit a state’s privacy laws and guarantees to have priority over federal constitutional law when it comes to foreign intelligence surveillance.

In the end, I don’t necessarily see the facts coming to light – but the contest ought to be held as between the administration and the court, without interference from Congress. If the admin wants to assert “state secret,” then that’s part of the contest. But it’s happening in view of the public, and the public can draw whatever inferences it wants to.

I think the whole lot of them is entertaining at best, worthless, and unfortunately, dangerous if permitted to assert their sense of “this makes good law” against the public.

So yeah. We’re better off if he isn’t there. Likewise Obama and Clinton. Maybe we could get about 80 of them to run simultaneously.

The Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives (upon certification by the Clerk of the House of Representatives) shall deduct from the monthly payments (or other periodic payments authorized by law) of each Member or Delegate the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the House, unless such Member or Delegate assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family.

So, the law no longer applies to Senators.

From the Senate Report on Public Law 109-55:

SEC. 5. ABSENCES. This section eliminates a provision of 2 U.S.C. 39, relative to member absences from the Senate, which has no practical application in today’s Senate and was last acted upon in 1865.

I’m just curious. I think good citizenship directs that the Senators resign if they’re going to run, or at least volunteer to forego pay. I’d zing McCain in a heartbeat, he’s a weasel.

Optional Attendance in U.S. Senate May Soon Be Official

How broadly the public have been surveilled and subjected to personal data collection has not been laid out for the public by those the public has elected, with relatively few exceptions.

IMHO, it’s likely that they are recording and archiving in perpetuity everything the telcos will give them, ie., ALL email and phone calls. And, they are reviewing and data mining that archive.