W.B.: Yes because they can't introduce that into the court because it was acquired without a warrant, so if you brought that in it would be thrown out.
R.K.: What would happen if a lawyer asked routinely in every case, was NSA information used?
W.B.: Well, here's the real rub on that one, the Solicitor General of the United States testified to the Supreme Court in the case, Amnesty International vs Clapper, that should that be the case that NSA data was used against anyone, that they would be told in advance that that was going to happen and that was a lie to the Supreme Court to get that case dismissed, because in that case it was proven later that all of the data they have been using had never been notified to any defendants.
R.K.: Wait a second, are you saying that Clapper lied? Oh my goodness!
W.B.: No it wasn't Clapper, it was in the testimony to the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General argued that if any NSA data was being used in any case against any individual that that individual would be told the source of that data was NSA. So they would -
W.B.: They would then have the ability to do discovery and contesting the discovery which is their constitutional right when in fact that was false. So that's perjury to the Supreme Court to get the case Amnesty International dismissed. Versus Clapper. Amnesty International vs Clapper. That case, that's the way they argued to get that case dismissed.
R.K.: Okay. And so who was the person who perjured?
W.B.: Well it was the Solicitor General of the United States and I don't remember his name but he has been, as far as I know, he has been going around saying okay now that I have said that in the Supreme Court we have to retroactively go back and do that in all the cases where we have used this data and they have yet to do that.
R.K.: This is a pretty serious charge he has made. Is anybody else talking about this?
W.B.: Yes, there are a number of people that has been in different newspapers, news articles, and various blogs and so on. I mean, there are a number of people talking about this, yes.
R.K.: Okay. Who would prosecute the Solicitor General, I mean-
W.B.: I know. That's the problem
R.K.: Who does the Solicitor General work for?
W.B.: Well he works for the Attorney General, right? But the point is, he needs to be, he needs to either prosecute the people who told him that, who lied to him as giving him that information to go into the court or he needs to be removed and we need a special prosecutor to go after everybody on this.
R.K.: It sounds to me like that's what we need. A special prosecutor, independent of the Department of Justice, independent of the White House,