As for the law, in a 2003 memo, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget prohibits federal agencies from using persistent cookies _ those that aren’t automatically deleted right away _ unless there is a ‘compelling need.’ A senior official must sign off on any such use.

“I do not think that word means what you think it means…”

Which law did he violate? Go ahead, I’ll wait. And please be specific.

Is that so difficult?

(The only reason I would ‘hope and pray’ the President’s actions are illegal is that I hope that the Constitution still means something)

And nickles to dimes the SCOTUS doesn’t find it to be the case either.

64% of the country believes that the President should be able to “spy” on suspected terrorists making phone calls to or out of this country in order to protect us. I am in that 64%. You’re not. You’re also in that minority that believes it was illegal (Hope and pray that it was illegal is more accurate).

Not much respect for whistleblowers, huh? When the President of the United States circumvents laws that are clearly laid out to prevent a certain action where is the accountability if it is against the law to reveal this to the the public?

Congress was forbidden to reveal knowledge of the program even though the President claimed the actions were under their authority. (Though, in fact, language that would have permitted unwaranted domestic spying that was submitted by the President was expressly removed from the authorization of military action against al Qaeda.

If not Congress and not the Courts and not the Press where are the checks and balances? These are, afterall, the principles we are defending.