I am not speaking to Nadler. I’m speaking to his veracity as a source of info and how some here want to blindly believe what he says. Are you claiming that this guy is a legitimate source? If so, please state your criteria for such a claim.
His claim may be true. You have no way of determining if it is so. That is my point.
Your point is logical.
However, Nadler is a proven liar -- he is, after all, a liberal.
He gains nothing by admitting that the NSA can listen to any call they wish. Indeed, his side is hurt by that admission.
Consequently, it is reasonable to believe that, in this particular case, he just might be telling the truth.
Precisely. You ARE "speaking to his veracity as a source of info".
His claim may be true. You have no way of determining if it is so. That is my point.
And a good point it is. The solution is to cross check, not to reject out-of-hand.
Maxine, same thing. I'd expect the SB to blab the truth, only because the B is so S she thinks it's a good thing!
OTOH, she is so S that one simply must verify that what she thinks is true actually happened!
OTOOH, we are getting essentially the same story from multiple warring sources.
OTOOH, planting a story to multiple sources is a known disinformation technique.
OTOOOH, we do know the NSA has the technological capability of doing precisely this, and we do know that the left regards 1984 as a manual, not a cautionary tale.
This is an extremely damning charge to make. If he's lying, then where are the other congressmen to set the record straight?