Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

FISA Update: House Democrat inaction degraded US intell capability, as predicted [Karl]

The Washington Post reports that the failure of House Democrats to allow a vote on the terrorist surveillance law reduced cooperation from the telcos last week:

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said in a letter sent yesterday afternoon to Capitol Hill that the companies were refusing to cooperate because they were uncertain about what legal liability they might face.

“We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act,” McConnell and Mukasey wrote to Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), chairman of the House intelligence committee. “Because of this uncertainty, some partners have reduced cooperation.”

The two officials noted that some companies have “delayed or refused compliance” with requests to add surveillance targets to general orders that were approved before the law expired. They did not provide further details.

Moreover, while many left-liberals seem incapable of grasping the concept that telcos might want immunity from lawsuits challenging their cooperation with the government in the Terrorist Surveillance Program simply because defending against the suits may be costly, even if they win, the WaPo adds another factor into the mix:

(S)ome people familiar with their thinking said that the companies reduced cooperation for practical reasons.

“The skittishness and concern is the companies are already spending a great deal of money on a number of suits pending that they don’t have the ability to defend against because of the State Secrets Act,” said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. “That’s why the companies are saying, ‘We just can’t put ourselves in the position of having another round of suits against us because there’s no law in place at the moment that will protect us from litigation.'”

In other words, not only is the defense of the lawsuits costly, but the fact that the program is highly classified also makes it difficult for the telcos to defend themselves.

The Left likes to pretend that the issue of telco immunity is separable from the ability of the US to detect the plots of our enemies, but reality is intruding on their risky pretense.

65 Replies to “FISA Update: House Democrat inaction degraded US intell capability, as predicted [Karl]”

  1. sashal says:

    government can do no harm.
    Every private business has to cooperate with authorities.
    Therefore I would suggest not the immunity but a new law, which will force every corporation and enterprise to assist and cooperate with the government, otherwise they will encounter strict penalties all the way up to the forceful bankruptcies and jail time for the CEOs.

  2. B Moe says:

    Your childishness is getting rather tiresome, sashal. You should spend more time on progressive blogs learning about nuance.

  3. Semanticleo says:

    >Chuckle> Yeah. The article opens with; “The Bush administration said……………..” Need it say more? Oh, yeah, here’s more………………”But hours later, administration officials told lawmakers that the final holdout among the companies had relented and agreed to fully participate in the surveillance program””

    ‘Nuff said.

  4. JD says:

    fuck off cleo. your inability to understand simple concepts is only surpassed by your loonwaffliness.

  5. Semanticleo says:

    Because they always tell the truth, don’t they?

  6. LiveFromFortLivingRoom says:

    Comment by Semanticleo on 2/23 @ 10:32 am #

    Because they always tell the truth, don’t they?

    Yes but only when a Democrat is the CIC.

  7. JD says:

    a lying fucking mental midget, miss cleo is. ever since she informed us that pres traumatic stress disorder accounted for beauchamp making shit up, mocking and scorn is all she deserves.

  8. TmjUtah says:

    It’s important to recognize the enemies of freedom.

    Some kick out McDonald’s windows in Seattle. Some fly hijacked airplanes into buildings. Some blow themselves up in weddings.

    The most dangerous ones, though, get elected to the Congress and pretend that all those other ones don’t really matter as long as there are still Republicans hanging around.

  9. Rob Crawford says:

    Folks, just remember that cleo said all of the abuses during the Clinton administration were no worry because he trusted them.

    Cleo’s a partisan hack.

  10. Topsecretk9 says:

    Well, I guess the left can’t crybaby about “dots” anymore. Seems they never really gave a crap in the first place.

  11. Merovign says:

    The trolls, the trolls, the trolls are on fire!
    I didn’t do it, honest!

  12. Scape-goat Trainee says:

    “government can do no harm.
    Every private business has to cooperate with authorities.
    Therefore I would suggest not the immunity but a new law, which will force every corporation and enterprise to assist and cooperate with the government, otherwise they will encounter strict penalties all the way up to the forceful bankruptcies and jail time for the CEOs.”

    So…in other words, you support Universal Health Care.

  13. JD says:

    This really highlights how full of shite the Dems were when they were attacking Bush about not connecting the dots. Clearly, it is their intention to ensure that the intelligwnce community not to have access to the dots in the first place.

  14. Education Guy says:

    sashal, realizing that making arguments based on facts is for him a losing proposition, decides instead to argue with the phantoms in his head.

    cleo just hates the right wing. Not the real right wing mind you, the one he has conjured together from the self loathing of a million lefty partisans who long for the days when communism still seemed like it might have a chance.

  15. Darleen says:

    cleo

    and the article further states “We have lost intelligence information this past week

    Non cooperation, even if temporary, means lost info that can never be recovered.

    Information flows like a river, and when you stand on the bank and withdraw your net for a week or more you are going to miss a lot.

    Is that analogy too complex for you, or must I put it in even simpler terms to try and speak to the leftcultist “mind”?

  16. Semanticleo says:

    “Folks, just remember that cleo said all of the abuses during the Clinton administration were no worry because he trusted them.”

    You’re a LYING partisan hack, CornCobb.

    And that’s not the first time you’ve made that shit up.

  17. Semanticleo says:

    “must I put it in even simpler terms”?

    You have heard of the concept of ‘credibility’, haven’t you?

    George Bush says; “What are you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?

  18. JD says:

    Cleo – That was almsot a verbatim quote from you. You said you trusted Clinton, so it did not bother you. Ah, I get it. Leftspeak makes quoting you a smear.

  19. ushie says:

    Um, no, ‘cleo, that was Richard Pryor.

    I have to agree with sashal and ‘cleo, though…I prefer we stumble around in the dark, blindfolded, with thick mittens on our hands and earplugs in our ears, so that we don’t know what’s coming. IOW, to be ignorant and uninformed. Hell, that’s how I’m planning to vote this year!

  20. Shad says:

    Comment by Semanticleo on 1/27 @ 12:34 pm:

    “The point is that your fellow travelers had no problem with any of this when Clinton was president”

    If it was an issue then, it was under my radar. Regardless, there are trust issues that have evolved which open far too many cans of pork and beans. Didn’t RWR say ‘Trust, but verify’?

    Looks like Rob (#9) is right, and cleo (#16) is lying.

    In other news, water remains wet.

  21. B Moe says:

    Didn’t RWR say ‘Trust, but verify’?

    Yeah. He was talking about the enemy. Another reason to question which side you are on.

  22. Semanticleo says:

    Is THAT the quote you’re referring to Cob?

  23. JD says:

    Cleo – we have to make a deal. When you talk, or type as it may be, at least ONE person must be paying attention.

  24. Jeff G. says:

    You have heard of the concept of ‘credibility’, haven’t you?

    McConnell worked under Clinton. Did you trust him then, or has your trust issue now “evolved” given that he’s doing the same job for a Republican administration charged with fixing the intel and military messes created by his predecessor, and charged with doing so in the aftermath of a major attack on our country?

    You’re a child.

    And sashal, take your strawman out, buy him a few drinks, and then say your goodbyes to him. Breaking up is hard to do, I know, but it can also be liberating.

    We are talking about specific industries with specific capabilities aiding in intel gathering in a specific context for specific purposes. The only slippery slope you need to worry about is the one on your skull, because it seems to be letting fluid loose from your brainpan.

  25. Rob Crawford says:

    Is THAT the quote you’re referring to Cob?

    Yes, child, it is.

    I realize that throwing your own words back at you is the height of unfairness in your mind, but in mine it’s called “understanding the basis of someone’s position”. You explained your position — you felt no reason to distrust Clinton, so even when they illegally ransacked the FBI files of political opponents and used the IRS as a political weapon, it wasn’t worth your time.

    It’s clearly a partisan matter for you. That you forgot even saying as much makes it clear your position isn’t even one you reasoned your way to — it’s a purely emotional matter.

    In fact, in that same discussion, you were asked, “In the next Democrat Administration, how much will conveniently go back “under the radar”?” You answered:

    It will be based upon my trust issues. “Fool me once………..”

    Again, it’s based not on a reasoned position, but on some nebulous feeling of how much you can trust the pol. I get the feeling, somehow, that anyone with a (D) after their name will earn your trust quite easily.

    Now, run along off to the playground. The adults are having a discussion.

  26. Topsecretk9 says:

    incomprehensible non sequitur response in 5…4…3…

  27. Semanticleo says:

    Cobb;

    Thanks for your little diversion, but can we get back to the quote?

    You folks have some difficulty with concepts such as ‘credibility’, and

    CONTEXT…………..

    The comment in question was in response to Karl’s reference to Echelon, and the matter was not just off my radar, but APPARENTLY THE ENTIRE
    NATIONAL SECURITY APPARATUS.

    If ANY of you think I am a Clinton fam, you are just too………..
    dare I say it, DELUSIONAL.

    If you care to continue this conversation, you’ll have to PROVE it was a lie.

  28. Semanticleo says:

    You know the word prove, don’t you.

    It’s the same idea as, ‘Prove GWB is a fucking liar.’

  29. Semanticleo says:

    “You’re a child.”

    As told by GoldBrick.

  30. Rusty says:

    #

    Comment by Semanticleo on 2/23 @ 3:24 pm #

    Cobb;

    Thanks for your little diversion, but can we get back to the quote?

    You folks have some difficulty with concepts such as ‘credibility’, and

    CONTEXT…………..

    The comment in question was in response to Karl’s reference to Echelon, and the matter was not just off my radar, but APPARENTLY THE ENTIRE
    NATIONAL SECURITY APPARATUS.

    If ANY of you think I am a Clinton fam, you are just too………..
    dare I say it, DELUSIONAL.

    If you care to continue this conversation, you’ll have to PROVE it was a lie.

    Guess we won’t be hearing from you for awhile then?

  31. McGehee says:

    “BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!”

    “…you’ll have to PROVE it was a lie.”

    Heh.

  32. B Moe says:

    incomprehensible non sequitur response in 5…4…3…

    Bingo. With random caps, no less.

  33. Rob Crawford says:

    If you care to continue this conversation, you’ll have to PROVE it was a lie.

    Prove what was a lie? That you had no beef with Clinton misusing the government because you trusted him?

    Fer fucks sake, semen-tick, you’re the one who said it.

  34. Semanticleo says:

    “That you had no beef with Clinton misusing the government because you trusted him?”

    i am a jelly donut, what’s this about beef? (fer fuck’s sake)

  35. RTO Trainer says:

    And Semanticleo is off.

    The Obtuse is Loose!

  36. Jason says:

    Heh. This was soooo important to Bush that he vowed to veto it, then scampered off on his little African safari.

    The public ain’t buyin’ it.

    There is no grassroots groundswell of support for retroactive telecom immunity. Not even when you use the word “terrorist” over and over.

    Bottom line: Bush left the country and refused to extend it. That’s why it died. Everyone knows it.

  37. Gabriel Fry says:

    What do the telecom companies want immunity for doing? Specifically. Anyone?

  38. JD says:

    Cooperating with the government, and immunity from the frivolous fucking lawsuits that the lecherous plaintiff bar is pursuing in jurisdictions throughout the country.

  39. Gabriel Fry says:

    But what’s illegal about cooperating with the government? Isn’t that what we’re all doing when we pay our income taxes? How is what the telecoms did different?

  40. JD says:

    Because we do not get sued for paying our income taxes, but the vermin lecherous plaintiff bar is filing suits all over the fucking country for their phantom plaintiffs with phantom injuries claiming illegal activity not proven. Fuck it. You are not being serious about this.

  41. Gabriel Fry says:

    I am being serious. These telecom companies have legal teams who are experts in this kind of law. If they were doing something illegal, they knew it at the time. If they went ahead and took an unfounded assurance from the federal government that they were safe, then they deserve to get screwed as hard as anyone else dumb enough to trust the government. And if the federal government convinced them to knowingly break the law, then someone in the federal government is liable for that law-breaking.

    This legislation is a euphemism for a cover-up, and anyone who wants to pass it has to pony up the facts. Immunity cannot be granted for unspecified crimes, and crimes committed at the urging of the federal government require the prosecuting of those members of the federal government who incited them. Period. Otherwise, where is the public accountability?

    No one who advocates this “get out of jail free” card has yet been able to explain to me exactly what sins are being forgiven. I’m open to having my mind changed, but it’s going to take a compelling argument, and “Actions that we can’t tell you about taken by people we can’t name for reasons that are entirely classified” is not going to cut the mustard. Ditto for “there are plots! and we can’t find out about them through FISA!” which, for all of its dramatic value, tends to ignore the fact that the only foiled plot of which I am aware (we all have a little too much self-respect to drag those retards from Florida into this, right?), the one in Germany, was foiled through good old FISA protocol, not through unspecified actions by unspecified people at unspecified telecom giants.

    So I ask again, for what actions, specifically, do these telecom companies want immunity?

  42. Islam says:

    So I ask again, for what actions, specifically, do these telecom companies want immunity?

    They want immunity from civil suits which are being brought against them. I have a hard time believing you don’t know this already.

  43. JD says:

    gabriel knows that. He is just being willfully obtuse. Imaginary plaintiffs pursuing claims of imagined injuries.

  44. Gabriel Fry says:

    I know they want immunity from civil suits. I didn’t ask “from” what they want immunity, I asked “for” what they want immunity. Imaginary plaintiffs with imaginary injuries sue big corporations all the time, and they lose, and that’s part of the business. What makes this different? Why is it special? So special, in fact, that it’s worth spiking national security legislation to ensure its inclusion. Because that’s not small beans.

    Because it seems to me that the genesis of this provision is that certain actors within the federal government let loose to these telecoms with a lot of big talk about exigent circumstances that, when it came to light in the public eye, made them look like fools, and providing retroactive legal immunity to the telecoms keeps these unnamed actors from having to eat crow and possibly face indictment. Sweep the whole thing under the rug, if you will.

    You seem to think that that’s not the genesis and/or primary motivation of this provision, so I was hoping you might have a more detailed argument in favor of this particular spasm of federal intervention than “you’re being willfully obtuse.” I’m all ears. Why is protecting huge, oft-sued corporations from one sliver of the vast body of frivolous lawsuits worth delaying the passage of a (ostensibly critical) national security update?

  45. RTO Trainer says:

    Civil lawsuits have what to do with criminal law, Gabriel?

    Are you implying that no one has ever been sued for actions that were wholly legal?

  46. Education Guy says:

    Why is protecting huge, oft-sued corporations from one sliver of the vast body of frivolous lawsuits worth delaying the passage of a (ostensibly critical) national security update?

    Because it’s the people, through their duly elected government that is asking the telco’s to cooperate. It’s more than frivolous to get sued over something like that, it’s interference.

  47. Education Guy says:

    Then again, it’s way more fun to just shout CONSPIRACY and COVERUP! Makes you feel all Woodwardy.

  48. JD says:

    RTO – He thinks that they should just suck it up, spend billions defending themselves, and pass on the costs to the customers, just so some BS plaintiffs can push to have national security programs exposed in discovery in civil litigation. They hope to cripple intelligence gathering by exposure of programs, and by making it too costly to aid the government. All in the name of privacy, and defending some right to call Abdul overseas during a war.

  49. Education Guy says:

    Hell, he thinks that the executive branch (and the telco’s) should have to prove their innocence. As if there is no legislative and judicial oversight into the program.

  50. Gabriel Fry says:

    National security programs don’t get exposed to public scrutiny in civil litigation if they are classified. So that’s a canard. And yes, people get sued all the time for wholly legal actions, and you know what? They win and they collect legal fees. Or the suits get dismissed because they are baseless. I can’t believe I’m getting flak from a group of conservatives for questioning the intrusion of the federal government into civil matters.

    The people, through their duly elected government, may have asked the telcos to cooperate, but if the people, through their duly elected government, asked the telcos to do something that the people, through their duly elected government, had clearly stated was illegal, then the proper response from the telcos is “work it out and call us back. We’ll keep the line open.” And if they failed to respond in that manner, then they are open to lawsuits, and they had every reason to expect at the time that they were opening themselves to lawsuits, and since they have the wherewithal to handle those lawsuits, then this immunity provision is not necessary, and anyone who holds up the passage of the (ostensibly critical) national security legislation on the grounds that this unnecessary provision is not included is playing politics with American national security.

    Which is not a conspiracy, EG, it’s just an embarrassment. If the government wants private enterprises to aid it, then the government should consider refraining from asking private enterprises to engage in illegal activities. Is that unreasonable?

  51. RTO Trainer says:

    National security programs don’t get exposed to public scrutiny in civil litigation if they are classified.

    Depends entirely on the Judge. One might assume not, but one might get a bad surprise, too. It has happened before.

    I can’t believe I’m getting flak from a group of conservatives for questioning the intrusion of the federal government into civil matters.

    Denial is a normal first reaction. Accepting that you have a problem is the first step. The problem here is that you don’t know what “conservatives” are. When you’re ready, we’ll be here.

    It’s not illegal. You are convinced otherwise, perhaps you’ll cite the Title and Chapter for us?

  52. JD says:

    The base and fundamental assumption that the leftists make is that the illegality of the actions is a given. I still have a fundamental problem with litigating national security, but to folks on the left, that is a feature, not a bug. Gabriel, if we went to a loser pays standard, I would be cool with it.

  53. Gabriel Fry says:

    Well if you want to get into definitions, a lot of people who claim to be conservatives don’t know what conservatives are. Like the ones who advocate greater and more pervasive government intervention in private affairs, but only for “conservative” causes like censoring Dan’s blowjob-centric posts. You want to go down that rabbit hole? On the internet, of all places? Ugh.

    At the risk of repeating myself, what’s not illegal? We’ve had, as yet, no answer to that question other than “cooperating with the government,” which is hardly adequate. If no laws were broken, then no basis for lawsuits has been established, so no federally-granted immunity is necessary. But you’re saying that federally-granted immunity is necessary, so it follows that the lawsuits are not baseless, which leads us back to the legality of the telecoms’ actions vis-a-vis the federal government. And the only motive so far proffered is “They hope to cripple intelligence gathering by exposure of programs” which, all apologies, totally eclipses any conspiracy allegations I may have made on this thread.

  54. JD says:

    pure unadulterated fucking horseshit, proving how patently un fucking serious you are. Care to accept loser pays ? Operate under an agreement where all discovery is done en camera ?

  55. RTO Trainer says:

    You already adminted that people are sued civilly for wholly legal actions.

    A breach of law is not required to file or prevail in a civil suit. The civil and criminal law systems are two different things.

    When WidgetCo produecs a product, that unknown to them, causes some injury to the people who use it, they are open to a lawsuit, though they have broken no laws. And they may have to make compensation for those unintentional injuries.

    “Illegal” means an infraction of criminal statute. If you wish to say that the telcos or the government have done something illegal, you’ll have to, at least make a claim on which law it is that was broken.

  56. B Moe says:

    Imaginary plaintiffs with imaginary injuries sue big corporations all the time, and they lose, and that’s part of the business.

    Maybe so, but REAL plaintiffs with imaginary injuries and slick lawyers and pr goons sue big corporations most of the time, and the big corporations settle for big bucks out of court because it is still cheaper than winning a drawn out, nasty court battle with all the bad publicity.

  57. Gabriel Fry says:

    But in this case, there is no bad publicity to be had for these corporations, because, as the President has said, their actions were provably necessary to stop actual terrorist plots. That’s hardly a negative, right? And the plaintiff would have to prove injury, which is practically impossible, and, I would argue, entirely impossible in the face of Verizon’s yearly legal defense budget (for example, given that they are only allegedly involved). So this is at best just back-scratching, not the kind of serious business that merits holding up vital national security legislation.

    And the WidgetCo example isn’t relevant, because the feds actually acted here, the telcos just granted access to their facilities. That would be like KSM suing Poland Spring because the feds poured their water in his nose. It wouldn’t reach settlement. No court would accept it. Had the telcos gone to the government and said “hey, we have these interchanges, care to listen?” one might possibly allege harmful intent, but that’s not what happened, and even if it was it’s not provable.

    So what reason, other than sweeping the feds’ shaky reasoning for doing this under the rug, explains the priority put on the immunity provision? What makes it so vital that the whole surveillance program must be held hostage to this provision?

  58. Education Guy says:

    Which is not a conspiracy, EG, it’s just an embarrassment. If the government wants private enterprises to aid it, then the government should consider refraining from asking private enterprises to engage in illegal activities.

    You certainly have that worked out nice and neat in your head. The problem is, and this is something that has been repeatedly pointed out to you, that merely claiming something is illegal does not make it so. In fact, one has to have some sort of proof of illegal behavior in order to make that charge. It’s one of the foundations of our judicial system.

    I’m surprised an American citizen is cool with turning that concept on its head. Since you seem to want to pull some sort of group identification card into the mix.

  59. B Moe says:

    But in this case, there is no bad publicity to be had for these corporations…

    You are just being obstinate now, there is no fucking way you can say the telecoms haven’t been getting pounded PR wise by the media and the left over this.

  60. Gabriel Fry says:

    EG, if what they did was not illegal, then allegations of injury resulting from breach of privacy have no basis. Because the telecoms didn’t use the info, the feds did. So the telecoms are blameless. The civil suits end like so: “Our actions were not illegal, and they were performed under the compulsion and supervision of the US federal government.” If no illegal acts were performed, then only the federal government needs to contend with breach of privacy allegations. So immunity for the telecoms is not only not vital, it’s not even remotely necessary.

    Yes, Moe, I am being obstinate, because if your concern here is for the PR efforts of such widely beloved entities as Verizon and Sprint(allegedly), and you contend that the national security legislation being held up by this provision is vital, then you are willing to jeopardize national security to protect a handful of telecoms from bad PR from one section of the population, and not even a section to which you are inclined to give much credibility. And if the telecoms are withholding support for vital anti-terrorist measures out of a reluctance to sustain bad PR from a media and an ideology that you yourself repeatedly tar as illegitimate, then why the hell are you worried about the fate of the telecoms?

    So I call bullshit. Either the legislation itself is not as important as we are being led to believe, or the telecoms/feds have done something illegal/unethical that they want to cover up, or, and here’s where my money is, this whole thing is a political maneuver that hasn’t got nearly as much to do with national security as it does with domestic party politics. As such, this narrative and its adherents signal a willingness to subvert national security needs to domestic political goals, which is not only shameful, but not worth the column inches devoted to it.

  61. Education Guy says:

    EG, if what they did was not illegal, then allegations of injury resulting from breach of privacy have no basis.

    Which won’t stop organizations with deep pockets, like the ACLU, from pursuing lawsuits, and won’t defray the legal costs of defending against those suits. If you can understand that, then there is no need to respond to the rest of your statement.

    If something illegal was done, then the agents in the judicial and legislative branches should ensure that charges are filed. Barring that happening, everything else is just screaming conspiracy. I do agree with you that this is entirely motivated by politics, but I suspect we agree for opposite reasons.

  62. Gabriel Fry says:

    I could possibly agree with the idea that the feds ought to defray some of the costs of the lawsuits levied against the telecoms, should they proceed, since that’s just an acknowledgment that it was the feds who got the telecoms into this (dubious) pickle, but granting retroactive immunity would prevent the cases from being heard, which is essentially judging them to be without merit sight unseen. However convenient that may be for the targets of these supposed lawsuits, it is also a de facto claim that the judicial system in this country is inadequate which, while reasonable people can disagree on that, is a separate issue.

    That aside, the rationale for why national security must be (ostensibly) jeopardized to ensure the passage of this provision remains inadequate. The telecoms continue to cooperate despite the lack of immunity, the law continues to operate unchanged despite its approaching sunset, and terrorist plots continue to be thwarted through the old rules, despite Bush’s sputtering protestations that we’re being caught with our pants down, which is even more ridiculous when one considers that the NSA surveillance under debate here is alleged to have begun prior to the only successful attacks launched against the United States, on September 11th, 2001. So why all the hoopla?

  63. JD says:

    How about loser pays then, Gabriel?

  64. Gabriel Fry says:

    I have no objection to “loser pays,” given that there are organs extant (such as the ACLU) that are fronting the money for the suits to proceed in the first place. I would disagree with it if these suits were being pursued solely with the private funds of the complainant, given that the defendant has the option of dragging out the suit to run up costs in hopes of bankrupting the other side. But there’s insurance schemes for that sort of situation right? At any rate, it’s a hypothetical, since this stuff is being pursued under our current system.

  65. […] people who claim to value fairness would realize that the State Secrets Act renders the telcos unable to properly defend against the FISA-related lawsuits.  Moreover, the fact that lawyers in just one […]

Comments are closed.