SCHIEFFER: The first thing that agencies tend to do is try to make sure they can't be blamed for something. And, clearly, that is why the FBI and the CIA did not come clean with the Warren commission, and why maybe they didn't even tell the agents in Dallas what was going on.
but also involves corroborative document and witness to U.S. Embassy NSA related document sources within the United States Embassy in Berlin, Germany; the same embassy which those documents given by Ed Snowden and others to Der Spiegel that showed the U.S. Embassy in Berlin also doubled as an NSA listening station,
and that Der Spiegel and Le Monde apparently have MORE leaked U.S. top secret NSA documents than they are willing to now reveal, to back it up. Multiple nations having documentation and corroborative official or former official sources. That means it is vetted. On the other hand, we have no reason to believe any NSA denials at this time, because their track record has been that when they say no, they mean yes they did, even under oath to Congress, and with as yet not a single repercussion for their perjurious testimony. It is clear Obama was informed in 2010 for certain, and at that point forward, he made the choices he made. Obama himself is now internationally known to be such a pathological liar by even world leaders who are our allies, that any denial on his part no longer carries any weight beyond the "chance of perhaps a remote credibility", which diplomatically means (to those world leaders abroad): his word is dung, kolicashitz, or whatever word you wish to call it.
The NSA has been gradually increasing its data collection abilities by secret court warrants since 2004
But under Obama, instead of stopping the program within days of his illegally obtaining the Office of The Presidency by fraud, Obama green-lighted the NSA to increase its information sweep all the more. It is as if all the restraints upon the NSA were taken down, given monster steroids and PCP, and unleashed in order to see if it could achieve the ultimate unrestrained data collection imaginable and beyond imaginable.
The following once top secret but now public domain graphic among others has been published world-wide and shows the time-line of when service provider collection dates by the NSA began under the new data collection system.
Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the misinformation that the NSA, like the private sector, does the optional and voluntary data dump after 5 years of records retention,
since they operate by a different set of rules as if above the Law. But the NSA could still argue a retention within the Law to the effect that they can follow State examples, such as if often argued by attorneys at the Circuit Court level. For example, the NSA might argue that 50 year retention is an acceptable retention time, since Alcohol Beverage Control laws -- by example, in the state of California -- require those conviction for clerks selling alcohol to a minor to be retained by various State, Interstate, and Federal Law Enforcement for a minimum of 50 years. That is, 50 years wrongful alcohol sale record retention that stays with the individual in states like California, for example, where it such a misdemeanor conviction is to be treated as if on the same felony record retention level as murder, even though it is generally a $1,000 plus fine with community service and no to generally less than 6 months misdemeanor jail time (if any). So if record retention of a small piece of information goes on the employment record that essentially bans that person from ever working as a clerk around or in the sale of alcohol and tobacco products ever again is meant to be retained, why not every other miniscule bit of information of that person's life for the "needs of the Government" to make an informed determination upon an individual at any time. The NSA can also argue regarding secret records retention, such as on JFK's Assassination, given 50 years retention from its seal to 2017, or that the State of Arizona issues Driver's Licenses with 50 year expiration dates. So, that being the NSA reasoning, the NSA could make the legal argument later on by posing, why would the NSA data dump anything less old than that same 50 years retention from the time they start collecting into the storage capacities able to retain them if State and Federal Agencies retain or are already presumed to retain individual and collective information records for at least 50 years time?
But where does it all end?
A Day @ the Races
[Updated at 6:40 am Pacific with more readable hyper-links and an edited paragraph for better clarity.]