Wallace again falsely suggested PAA gave government authority to "monitor communications among terrorism suspects"
SUMMARY: Introducing an interview with Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, Chris Wallace asserted: "A law which gives President Bush powers to monitor communications among terrorism suspects expired at midnight." In fact, the expired PAA revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, did not simply give Bush "powers to monitor communications among terrorism suspects," but rather, among other things, the revisions expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant. Further, Wallace never mentioned that the government had the authority to listen in on the communications of suspected terrorists before Congress passed the PAA in August 2007 or that this authority continues despite the PAA's expiration.
On the February 17 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace again falsely suggested that the U.S. government will not be able to "monitor communications among terrorism suspects" now that the Protect America Act (PAA) has expired. Introducing an interview with Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, Wallace asserted: "A law which gives President Bush powers to monitor communications among terrorism suspects expired at midnight." Later in the program, Wallace told National Public Radio senior political correspondent and Fox News contributor Mara Liasson: "[A]t some point in the fall, [Republican presidential candidate] John McCain's gonna say when there was a question of whether or not you wanted to give us power to -- to listen in to Al Qaeda, the Democrats voted no."
In fact, the expired PAA revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), did not simply give Bush "powers to monitor communications among terrorism suspects," but rather, among other things, the revisions expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant. Further, Wallace never mentioned that the government had the authority to listen in on the communications of suspected terrorists before Congress passed the PAA in August 2007 or that the government's ability to "monitor communications among terrorism suspects" and "listen in to Al Qaeda" continues, despite the expiration of the PAA. In a February 15 article titled "If the Law Expires," The Washington Post reported that in the event of the PAA's expiration, "The government would retain all the powers it had before last August under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires the government to obtain court approval for surveillance conducted on U.S. soil or against U.S. targets." Moreover, a February 14 New York Times article reported:
The lapsing of the deadline would have little practical effect on intelligence gathering. Intelligence officials would be able to intercept communications from Qaeda members or other identified terrorist groups for a year after the initial eavesdropping authorization for that particular group.
If a new terrorist group is identified after Saturday, intelligence officials would not be able to use the broadened eavesdropping authority. They would be able to seek a warrant under the more restrictive standards in place for three decades through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
This is not the first time Wallace has falsely suggested that the government would lose its ability to monitor suspected terrorists' communications if the PAA expired or has asserted that the issue could be used politically against the Democrats. On the February 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Wallace asserted that when McCain "gets on the campaign trail and says, 'Look, here is a law that was going to provide the tools for the United States to be able to intercept communications of people who want to kill us and Congress went home, the Democratic Congress went home on a break' -- that's going to be a pretty effective weapon to use against the Democrats in the fall."
From the February 17 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: A law which gives President Bush powers to monitor communications among terrorism suspects expired at midnight. The question now is whether this has exposed the country to new threats. And here in a Sunday exclusive to help answer that is the director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell. Director, welcome to Fox News Sunday.
McCONNELL: Thank you, Chris. Delighted to be here.
WALLACE: As we said, the law lapsed at midnight and without giving away any secrets is there anything that you can't do today in monitoring terrorist communications that you could do yesterday?
[...]
WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about it -- we'll get to the telecoms in a moment. Let me ask you first, though, as you pointed out at the beginning, under the law that was passed in August, you had the ability -- and you exercised that -- to issue orders that allowed you to monitor terrorism suspects, communications involving alleged terrorist groups. The law has expired as of midnight, but those orders to monitor are valid for a year, so they stay on the books and allow you to monitor them 'til at least August. And the argument the Democrats make is that if there's somebody new that springs up, some new group that you haven't already covered, that you can go after them under old existing law. So they argue you haven't lost any operational capability.
McCONNELL: Chris, last summer we were in extremis because we had lost under the old law about two-thirds of our capability. This issue is, it's very dynamic. And the FISA Court had ruled --
WALLACE: When you say dynamic, you mean that new groups are springing up? New possible targets?
McCONNELL: New information, new personalities, new methods of communicating, so when the program was returned to the FISA Court in January of '07, initially we had coverage that we had asked for, but over time, because technology had changed and the and the law of '78, it had not been changed, because technology had gone from a wireless world to a wired world, foreigners communicating in a foreign country, more than likely the communications would pass through the United States. Therefore, the courts said if it touches a wire, consistent with the law, you have to have a warrant. Now a warrant means probable cause, which is a very time-consuming process to go through. So we were in that situation last summer. We passed the new act to make it -- improve our situation. That act has now expired.
[...]
JUAN WILLIAMS (National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News contributor): Well, when President Bush comes out and says, "We're in danger of being attacked," and starts to "fear-monger," as you heard [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] say, I think it raises it to a political level. What you said is true. There are a number of a career people involved, but I think they're being influenced in service to this administration and their approach to this. Now, let me just add quickly that the Democrats wanted a compromise and wanted to, in fact, extend this bill to allow a compri -- a discussion of a possible compromise to take place. The administration rejected that and said, "We do -- don't want you to have any temporary extension. It's now or never," because they saw a political advantage in somehow saying, "Oh, you know what, you Democrats, you are weak on national defense." And then [House Majority Leader] Steny Hoyer [D-MD] came out and said, you know, speaking to any possible terrorists, "We want you to know that in fact we can still monitor you and if any wiretaps or warrants that were put in place under this Protect America Act, in fact, still are in place for a year after they have been officially granted by a court."
WALLACE: Fred, beyond the merits of the argument, is it good politics at this moment for the Democrats to be standing up to the president on this issue, or is it the kind of thing that could end up biting them in the fall?
FRED BARNES (Weekly Standard executive editor): No, I think it definitely could bite them in the fall, and I think McCain will do the biting -- for sure on this issue. Look, do you want to be on the side of the terrorist surveillance program or do you want to be on the side of making the terrorist surveillance program more difficult and that's the side the Democrats on. They want to make it more difficult to carry out this program. I just think that's a huge mistake --
[crosstalk]
WILLIAMS: -- a democracy!
BARNES: Juan! Juan! Juan! Just a second! They've had plenty time to work on this. You know, the deadline -- I mean, they knew the six months were coming up. They had a two-week extension, then they want another one. They would want another and another. For the life of me, I don't understand why Democrats are doing this because at the end of the day, they're going to agree with the Senate program, which the administration supports, which does give immunity to the telecom companies and they're going to do that and they ought to do it now because that makes more political sense.
WALLACE: OK, what about that, Mara? That at some point in the fall, John McCain's gonna say when there was a question of whether or not you wanted to give us power to listen in to Al Qaeda, the Democrats voted no.
LIASSON: Yeah, I fully expect that he would say that, but I also think that by then there might be some sort of an -- a compromise on this issue of immunity, which is holding this whole thing up. You know, retroactive immunity.
WALLACE: All right, let's turn to John McCain, who swept the Potomac primaries this week and then got his endorsement -- I think surprise in terms of timing, not eventually - the endorsement of Mitt Romney.
Chris Wallace is a purposeful MISINFORMER, whose duty compels him to cite Rightwing Talking Points as if they were FACTS.
In this instance, the White House desires HYSTERIA and HYPERBOLE ... with no connection to the TRUTH ... in order to SCARE America into giving the White House what it wants (immunity, of course. What else?).
Wallace is dutifully doing his job of misinforming the American People, which calls for him to abandon any claim to objectivity, accuracy, or integrity.
He is not a journalist, he is a partisan hack. And he is a FRAUD, because he promotes the notion that he is somehow a reporter and journalist, in order to FOOL people into believing his premises and his framing. The more people who have no idea what is actually going on, the better he's doing his job.
You must be referring to Bill Clinton, since the leaders/pilot trainees of the 9-11 plot entered the country on his watch and began their pilot training. The plot was hatched and firmly in place long before George W. Bush took the oath of office, so you surely cannot be speaking of him.
You made one other mistake: Clinton wasn't napping. He was getting a lewinsky in the oval office when he should have been attending to matters of state.
Clinton wasn't napping. He was getting a lewinsky in the oval office when he should have been attending to matters of state.
At least Clinton was IN the Oval Office, not on the golf course or clearing brush, or on an EXTENDED VACATION. And Clinton was a multi-tasker. When will the 29%ers finally see the ineptitude of their fearless leader?
I was thinking this afternoon how this whole argument could come back to bite the Republicans in the butt. What if for example, thanks to these erroneous media claims by the likes of Faux Noise, there is an increase in “chatter” coming from terrorists because of a false sense of confidence in less surveillance – and this nets a growth in intelligence information? Who do you think deserves, or who will take, the credit for it?
as i wrote in another thread, let's get a clue. dismantle the cia, abolish fisa, and open the borders. if, as the democrats say, there is no real threat and it all fear mongering, well we'll find out. and while we're at it, we can get rid of police departments nationwide, except for inexpendable parking enforcement (that is really important)
and look at the money we'll save, enough to pay for hillary's healthcare.
You really are quite the piece of work aren't you?
No one is suggesting that there isn't a threat and that we should do anything like what you have suggested. However there are plenty of very reasonable people who do not think that there is any need to engage in unconstitutional activity to combat the threats that are out there.
None of the measures favored by the police state enthusiasts like yourself and the Bush Justice Department would have stopped 9/11. We had the information we needed but the right people didn't hear it or didn't act on it. No amoutn of additional tapped phone lines or tortured cab drivers would have helped. In fact, adding more useless chatter to the information pool would have helped even further obscure what info we did have.
If the Feds think that they have the number of a terrorist cell they are more than able to tap their phones, station parabolic microphones outside their residences and surveill them from a nondescript van 24/7. They just have to get a warrant. Oh, and they can even start doing all that and do it for three days before they go to all the hassle of going to the FISA court, which rarely rejects any applications and keeps its entire process secret.
"...as the democrats say, there is no real threat..."
Who? Kindly tell us who these Democrats are that said "there is no threat".
One that stands out is that goofball Larry Johnson. In July 2001, he wrote in an op-ed in the NYT that there is no threat from terrorism.
Real genius, that guy.
What Stranger says Larry said:
"there is no threat from terrorism."
What Larry actually said:
"I am not soft on terrorism; I believe strongly in remaining prepared to confront it. However, when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating constitutional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful."
I'm more interested in a guy named John Ashcroft.
On September 10, 2001, John Ashcroft rejected a request for funding $58 million dollars towards counter-terrorism.
"...if, as the democrats say, there is no real threat..."
Once again, another dishonest Republicon assertion... Why do you people insist on distorting reality to suit a right wing political agenda? Of course, the threat of terrorism exists and, in fact, we are likely to sustain another 9/11-type terrorist attack. However pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq was not and is not the intelligent way to foil another terrorist attack on American soil. Quit lying...!
as i wrote in another thread, let's get a clue. dismantle the cia, abolish fisa, and open the borders. if, as the democrats say, there is no real threat and it all fear mongering, well we'll find out. and while we're at it, we can get rid of police departments nationwide, except for inexpendable parking enforcement (that is really important)
--Buffy
Are you sure you don't work for the CIA or NSA? Since the man in charge of the security of this country learned everything he knows about protecting us from "The Pet Goat" perhaps a quote would be appropriate:
"The goat ate things. He ate cans and he ate canes. He ate pans and he ate panes. He even ate capes and caps."
The parallels between this literary tour de force and Walter the Farting Dog are unmistakable. but I'm sure I don't have to tell you that since I can tell you have read both several times. As Dubya noted after the attacks of 911, "If you read just one book on geopolitics and terrorism (and I have) make this the one. In the critical minutes after the terrorist attacks I found everything I needed to know in The Pet Goat." God save the Queen!
LOL
Buffy the Constitution Slayer
Dismantle the CIA. That is a thought. Their track record sucks and the combination of the State Dept, the Defense Intelligence Agency, each military branches Intelligence Arm, Dept of Homeland Security, FBI, NSA and another half-dozen alphabet soup agencies already cover their function a couple times over so that might help us with that National Debt thing.
Abolish FISA. Bad idea. It's been in place for a few decades now, works just fine (even without the PAA). I think I would like to have the Judicial Branch at least act like they aren't lap dogs for the Executive Branch. You never know, an American citizen might fall under their watchful gaze. Not ready to suspend all my rights to the unitary executive just yet, so I'm good with the continuing requirement for warrants, you know, that whole 4th amendment and all.
Open the borders. Now you're talking. If we could make the appropriate security arrangements with Canada and Mexico that might actually improve security. Biometric IDs and a liberalized work visa policy established between our 3 nations and some real security at all points of entry into North America might actually provide a measure of real security and solve the immigration issue at the same time. Or we can go your way and spend billions on 9000 miles of easily compromisable fencing and try to round up the 12 million or so already here - the likes of which have already proven to be such an immense terror threat to date that the current Administration has done exactly nothing to combat. Of course, since this issue is just about election year pandering to the few troglodytes out there afraid of the brown menace, I don't suppose either of our proposals will go very far.
Are you mailing me my crocheted pillow by the way?
Seems to me like we have three options:
1) Status quo, sub- and min. wage illegal workforce subsidizing our markets (and SS system) with the problems of identity theft, medical and law enforcement costs, etc. 2) Secure the border, find and deport as many as possible. This is the Law and Order crowds supposed mantra. After the enormous law enforcement cost, we would then see if the market would bear paying minimum wage for sub-minimum wage work, if anyone would take the jobs, and if we will pay the escalated market prices. 3) Establish a select class of sub-minimum and minimum wage jobs and liberalize the visas - let workers come and go provided no criminal record, background check, and they have an active work permit. US citizens get first crack, but if these are truly the jobs no one else wants (which I believe many are), then it lets the market determine what prevalent wage/price should be, removes illegality, creates taxability. It would probably require changing birthright citizenship for children of visa workers until they have worked long enough and gone through steps to permanent residence.
Implementing some level of #3 is the best hope for actually doing something, but little will actually change. Politicians know that #2 costs too much and #3 is too radical for the electorate. Besides, Washington doesn't really care about this issue, this is just election year pandering.
There is a huge flaw with your option 3. It is a myth that illegal immigrants are filling jobs that "Americans won't do." It is more accurate to say that they are jobs that Americans won't do for the ridiculously low wage that employers want to pay to get them done.
Creating a legalized sub-citizen class of foreign laborers is just another way to inflict the wage destroying forces of globalism on the American worker, but without all the trouble of having to build and produce in a foreign nation and import the products into this country.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Tbone, you stole my thunder.
I would match Larry Johnson, Scott Ritter, Rob Baer, Ray McGovern among others to the 'gang that can't see straight but for all the billions of taxpayer dollars' lead by the 'V.P. that couldn't shoot straight." The nefarious Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) fead on intelligence from the Iraqi National Congress scammer, a bank robber seated at the SOU next to the First Lady as he spouted the infamous 16 words and a Republican would spout off about national security! Thats not big hairy ones, that are the raisins trying to play like the big hairy ones.
Republicans wearing "Band-Aid Purple Hearts" to mock a decorated Vietnam War Vet on National Television at the Republican National Convention during a time of two wars would spout off about supporting the troops while they would cloke their greed, and crimes behind the American Flag would simply imply an contempt in American Democracy, or anything that is truly American!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
You hold him to that TBone, and we want the pillow's details. I think he may break your heart on this though.
;-)
hstybuf has officially jumped the shark. the comments are closed now, but you can check it out in the link. he claims the branch davidians at waco killed 6 federal agents because they "attacked" the compound. no, the agents were serving a warrant, were killed, and that lead to the 80 day standoff. also the "parishioners" at waco were black, according to him. may have been some but all i saw in the tapes were white people.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802150015?f=h_latest
Most of the parishioners were black? I think there were a couple, but it wasn't a "black church". Even if it was, it doesn't matter. If you shoot agents and hold a standoff with the government, you have to be accountable for that. It's not like "we don't care that you shot our agents because we don't want to lose black votes in the next election".
Besides, the feds didn't "burn down" anything. The flash in the video where they're breaking through a wall is a reflection. I have yet to see an explanation of how that could have started a fire anyhow. The fire started on the opposite side of the compound, if I recall correctly, and I've seen some of the survivors say that the Davidians set it themselves. That's a very strange claim if the government was actually responsible for it. Plus, people inside were shot with their own guns. Messianic cults have been known to commit mass suicide before, it shouldn't be a surprise.
Except for some of the long standing members of Media Matters conservative branch (Tommy, Jeter, and well you know who you are) it has begun to pain me to read the GOP'ers posts. The new NeoCon "onslaught" is pitiful. I truly feel sorry for them and anyone who debates them -- the NewCons have no idea what they are talking about and for those talking with the these Righties there is no explaining any fact to them.
How fearful the Right must be if these "minds" represent the best the GOP'ers have to offer. It's like watching the "Children's Crusade" unfold before my eyes as the Right suffers beat down after beat down on what could be valid discussion if the NewCons did not debate like George Will on horse tranquilizers. I don't agree with him usually but where is the next George Will -- not here and not in the MSM (they are becoming (or are depending on your opinion ) just as lame as most of the Reaps here.
This might be the funniest indefensible issue the republicans have ever defended. Carrying their logic to the end, Bush should be convicted of treason for putting immunity ahead of catching the evildoers.
The lack of immunity wouldn't even mean anything! Bush just has to refuse to investigate until the end of his term and then pardon the telecom leaders.
Steeve:
I am not sure about this legal point, but I believe that anybody Bush pardons can still be subpoenaed in some circumstances and forced to testify, although s/he cannot be held liable for any crimes already pardoned. I think Bush wants to avoid anybody knowing exactly what the telecom companies did, so he doesn't want to pardon them.
I agree with you, Irony, in that I think Bush & Co. are mostly interested in protecting themselves. Their arguments for spying are specious (as are their arguments for many other things).
See, call me crazy and all, but I don't mind if the government wiretaps the phones of terrorists, or in this case, suspected terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers. I also don't mind if they do it to American citizens, as long as they have a legal and justified warrant. I don't get what these guys are so all up in arms about. If it's an American citizen, or someone on American soil that you're tapping into, get a warrant. The FISA court will issue it, up to 72 hours after they start tapping. I just don't get all of these "warnings" that not following the law is somehow jeopardizing our security, since, once again, you can start it, get a warrant LATER, and everything is still kosher.
As I've heard others say, if Bush were really interested in the security of our country, he'd sign the House bill that extends this stupid PAA bill, and takes away immunity from the telecom companies, but we're seeing the result of a pro business executive branch, who want to protect these companies, instead of, once again, protecting the country. Hey W. What's more important? Immunity for the telecomms, or the security of our nation? You decide.
And why? because our Congress is a do-nothing Congress. And why is that? because the Republicans have decided to filibuster every piece of legislation, just to make the Democrats look bad in the up-coming election.
And this is something else that I don't understand. While the current crop of republican senators have become THE most obstructionist group of Senators EVER, we don't hear that. What we do hear is about how the democrats aren't doing anything. WHY don't the democrats come out with all guns blazing against the obstructionist republican senators. Start throwing around words like "nuclear option" like they did when the democrats blocked what? 4 or 5 judicial nominees who were crazy people while Bush had received more confirmations than any other President in history, and the republican senators were having hissy fits over the few that the dems wouldn't allow through.
I'm thinking large scale media and PR campaign about why things aren't getting done in DC, and who is really to blame.
On the other hand, the House has passed everything that they said that they would, only to have paralell legislation held up in the Senate because of, yes, the obstructionist republicans. It's borderline ridiculous that we don't hear about this more in the media, and or from the democrats directly to refute the "do nothing" label. Buck up boys and girls, start bad mouthing your opponents, they have no trouble doing it to you. Stop rolling over.
Of course, guys, it's pretty simple. Bush and the Republicans really don't want a bill. They just want an issue that they feel they can batter the Democrats with in the fall. After the whupping they got in 2006, they still don't get it, obviously. If they really wanted a bill, they could have agreed to the extension. But Shrub just continues to act like the petulant child we all know he is, and he knows he can count on his bootlickers in the right-wing noise machine to spew the party line.
Apparantly, the Wallace Family was only allotted a finite amount of journalistic integrity, and Mike Wallace is using all of it...
:-)
what do you mean?
Solon, I never said I was from Texas. I lived in Houston for six years. My wife is a Texan, from San Antonio, but she has lived most of her life out of the state.
We have a condo in SA, and we have an interest in a ranch south of SA. 1000 acres of mesquite, cactus, and rattlesnakes.
They why do you keep talking big about all of these famous political figures you hang out with in Texas all the time? Sounds like your "story" is evolving all the time. Oops, did I say evolving? I meant, your story is being created.
Your comment about it being "gay" heaven was quite uncalled for don't you think? Nah, I'm sure you don't think that. Soon you'll be agreeing with that Fin guy on topics that he/she posts on no doubt.
i live up a very steep driveway shared by five houses. i have been here for 20 years. the absolute worst neighbor was a guy from the red hot chili peppers,, john frasciante (sp?). he was a drug addict and eventually got foreclosed on. he set his house on fire twice. the hillside was strewn with needles. when his garbage bags got full, he would toss them out the door and eventually had mounds of garbage which attracted vermin and rodents. otoh, he was very quiet, and when he practiced the guitar he sounded like segovia.
then there was the guy from Yes. he had a knock out daughter.
Fred Savage was a pain. i don't know if you would call him secular, but he was not a pleasant neighbor.
Jason Biggs bought his house and he seems like a nice guy. He's got a cute girlfriend.
In one house we have a gay italian actor. Very quiet. He bought the house from a witch, thankfully.
In one house we have a pair of writers. They did the sopranos and basically live in n.y. now. robin green and mitch burgess. she's jewish, he's not. she's very secular. they're very pleasant.
ricky blitt, a writer, bought the frasciante house. he's very quiet and doesn't drive. strange dude, but a great neighbor.
probably more than you care to know, so don't read it.
And the name dropping continues.
Not only do I, and probably everyone else on here, doubt much of what you say, but name droppers are obnoxious fools who seldom know any of the people they name drop about. Knock it off. Nobody is impressed, and in fact, I'd hazard to guess that most don't believe you anyway.
Wow...! What's Kevin Federline really like? ;>)
BTW, I spoke to some gay friends in L.A. and they said they're not too crazy about having you in their district either. Henry Waxman declined to comment... ;>)
when we had the northridge earthquake in 1994, everyone mobbed the gelson's nearby. it was funny what some people were buying. one guy stood in line for two hours to get a six pack of coke. but there were david bowie and imam doing their shopping. everyone has to go someplace. they're no different.
yeah, he's very talented. i actually thought he died, he looked so bad when he lived here. Then i saw his pic in fortune or forbes and he had rejoined the group. I thought it was going to be an obituary.
Flea would come up and talk to him in the driveway, trying to talk him into quitting drugs. to no avail, obviously, at least then.
hey, magnolia, i was only responding to a question. i don't care whether you believe me or not. i mean, what's the big deal about being fred savage's neighbor. if i was going to make something up, i'd choose someone more interesting.
paris hilton did live nearby. i had to pass her house everyday. i saw her but once, but the papparazzi were a pain. and the helicopters when she was having her troubles were deafening.
I once stood right next to Paris Hilton looking at goofy books at Urban Outfitters in Soho. Did you get that close to her?
BTW, I'll never forget what Paris screamed: Security...! ;>)
I used to live 3 houses down from Steven King, and used to spot him on the bench press at the local Y we both worked out at. I met Bono in an elevator in NYC once. Played pick up games with Lamar Odom in Mexico Maine back when he was in prep school. Asked Nancy Kerrigan how her knee was doing at a ski resort. And this is all as meaningless as your name dropping as well. See how that works?
Holy cow! You live in LA and see celebrities all over the place. Man I wish I could be you. Oh wait, no I don't.
Thanks for stating the point directly...
BTW, did I ever tell you how I once pissed off Mel Brooks...? ;>)
Irony, you have to post the story now, I'm intrigued.
Yeah well I'm Derek Jeter & I've slept with Mariah Carey....among many others.
Top that ;-)
Since you live in LA and all, I thought you'd know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_Odom
Didn't mean to be too rough on you but the point is that everyone has had encounters with famous people. And I'm sure there must be some people here who are engaged in professions that bring them in regular contact with famous people. I've been guilty of dropping a name or two here now and then in the context of a thread but, I can assure, no one is impressed...except, of course, when I mention that I get a check from Mr. Soros every month to post here. ;>)
BTW, you ever wonder if there are any famous people who post on MMFA anonymously?
I don't even like basketball and knew who he was. For someone who has lived in California for most of his life, you tend not to know too much about what's going on out there, aside from what celebrities you've seen lately.