Now, given the professional opinion of some credible audio experts -- but not all -- that there are thirteen shots which can be heard on a primary audiotape of the actual assassination, I will readily concede in this case that he may not have been the only triggerman in the Ambassador Hotel's kitchen and pantry that night. Further, I'd also offer that Sirhan may have suffered from some form of diminished psychological capacity at the time of the shooting.

But there is no doubt at all that Sirhan shot Sen. Kennedy. He had an eight-shot Iver Johnson Cadet .22 caliber revolver in his hand when immediately apprehended and neutralized by L.A. Rams foorball star Roosevelt Grier and Olympic decathlete Rafer Johnson, and autopsy reports confirm that RFK was shot by a .22 at close range. There are simply too many eyewitnesses to the murder who saw Sirhan do it, to otherwise credibly allude to his innocence.

Eyewitnesses further noted that Kennedy had just turned to his left to shake hands with some of the hotel's banquet staff in the pantry, just as he had been doing while walking through the hotel kitchen, which would have exposed his right side when Sirhan emerged from behind an ice machine and opened fire at him. This would therefore account for the fatal head wound behind RFK's right ear, as well as the other two wounds beneath his right armpit.

Several witnesses also insisted that Mr. Grier and Mr. Johnson both tackled Sirhan as he continued firing his weapon. Reporter Andrew West of KRKD-AM in Los Angeles, who had followed Kennedy into the kitchen and managed to pose the last question ever asked of RFK less than a minute before the shooting, recorded the chaotic scene on his audiotape, and he can clearly be heard frantically warning Johnson that Sirhan was still armed, and to grab his revolver from him.

Who put Sirhan Sirhan up to the deed, if anyone, is certainly open to some speculation. But absolutely, he's guilty of the murder of Sen. Robert Kennedy, and he can rot in Hell for it.

In other words, that it wasn't specifically for Boston-bombing-related matters - if you read the order, it's completely generic.  In fact, Marcy Wheeler says (bold is mine):

Here's the question, though: if this program is no big deal, as the Administration and some members of Congress are already claiming in damage control, then why has the Administration been making thin non-denial denials about it for years? If it is so uncontroversial, why is it secret?

Is there anything about the order that tips people off to whom, precisely, is being targeted? Does it explain how good (or bad) NSA's data analysis tools are?

No. The collection is so broad, it could never provide hints of who is being investigated.

The WaPo suggests this order is just regular, routine collection, that quarterly 215 order sent to Verizon NBS. But even if, as I wondered last night, it's triggered to a specific investigation, is there anything in there that tells people what or who is being investigated?

No.

There is nothing operational about this Section 215 order that needs to be secret. Nothing. A TS/SCI classification for zero operational reason.

The secrecy has been entirely about preventing American citizens from knowing how their privacy had been violated. It serves the same purpose as Alexander's obviously dishonest answer.

[snip]

The Administration wants you to believe that "all three branches" of government have signed off on this program (never mind that last year FISC did find part of this 215 collection illegal -- that's secret too).

But our court system is set up to be an antagonistic one, with both sides represented before a judge. The government has managed to avoid such antagonistic scrutiny of its data collection and mining programs -- even in the al-Haramain case, where the charity had proof they had been the target of illegal, unwarranted surveillance -- by ensuring no one could ever get standing to challenge the program in court. Most recently in Clapper v. Amnesty, SCOTUS held that the plaintiffs were just speculating when they argued they had changed their habits out of the assumption that they had been wiretapped.

This order might just provide someone standing. Any of Verizon's business customers can now prove that their call data is, as we speak, being collected and turned over to the NSA. (Though I expect lots of bogus language about the difference between "collection" and "analysis.")

That is what all the secrecy has been about. Undercutting separation of powers to ensure that the constitutionality of this program can never be challenged by American citizens.

It's no big deal, says the Administration. But it's sufficiently big of a deal that they have to short-circuit the most basic principle of our Constitution.

And while of course they may be lying because they are politicians, the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee seem to think this is just a continuation or add-on of previous orders:

The statements by the two senators, whose committee positions give them wide access to classified data, appeared to rule out the possibility that the court order directing Verizon to turn over telephone records was related to the Boston Marathon bombings. The order was effective as of April 19, shortly after the bombings, which had sparked speculation about a link.

Instead, the surveillance, which was revealed Wednesday by Britain's Guardian newspaper, appears to have been of far longer duration. Although the senators did not specify the scope of the surveillance, the fact that it has been in place since 2006 also suggests that it is not limited to any one phone carrier.

The Obama administration defended the program Thursday, saying the data collection "has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States."

That last statement from the administration, IMO and reading between the lines, seems to indicate that this data collection "has been a critical tool ..." for longer than the 6 weeks since April 25. Unless of course, we've had numerous threats since then. But the more logical interpretation of that statement is that it has been a "critical tool" over years, not weeks.

Greenwald also says:

It is not known whether Verizon is the only cell-phone provider to be targeted with such an order, although previous reporting has suggested the NSA has collected cell records from all major mobile networks. It is also unclear from the leaked document whether the three-month order was a one-off, or the latest in a series of similar orders.

I'll tell you something: I don't need Rand Paul to make a pronouncement in order to believe something is wrong; I'm fully capable of coming to that conclusion all on my own.  The nation shouldn't need Rand Paul - or Ron Wyden - to tell them the Constitution is under assault; anyone with enough brain cells for a quorum ought to know that.

As Axlerod is fond to say..."The government is so vast...".

The vast size and incomprehensible scope makes all this much easier for the politicians to abuse and use to their advantage.

What you hear and read about are the times that arrests and charges happen, so the misperception is that it happens all the time, when more often than not, cops are in scuffles where nothing happens. So, how do you think you would hear about the literally hundreds of times per day this happens?

Their only hope will be the arbiter which means, like Braun last time, they'll need to find a technicality.

The lower court judge did not consider claims made by Heath Campbell's former wife of abuse of her and her two children because it happened seven or eight years earlier. She provided detailed documentation regarding several incidents of physical and psychological abuse.

The appellate judges ruled that the earlier evidence should have been deemed admissible because it shows a pattern of behavior that would put Campbell's current wife and children at risk. They noted that the father has never participated in counseling for domestic violence despite a conviction for making terroristic threats against a former wife.

According to the 49-page decision, Campbell has been unemployed throughout his adult life because of medical and psychological disabilities. He can't read. He was married twice before and does not support or see his other children.

He and his third wife, Deborah Campbell, have since split up. She was also unemployed because of physical and psychological conditions. She dropped out of high school in her sophomore year, the court document says.

Both were abused as children themselves but neither has received adequate treatment for their serious psychological conditions, the court document says.

This family does not stand a chance.

DYFS became involved with the family on Dec. 16, 2008, after receiving a complaint that the children were being strapped and confined for unusual amounts of time in child booster seats and that domestic violence occurred in the home, the court document says.

Deborah Campbell denied being abused by her husband. DYFS workers noted on Dec. 17, 2008, that the children appeared healthy and "that the home was clean and orderly, although it contained some unusual decorative features, such as skulls and knives," according to the court document.

The next day another complaint was received and a neighbor called and said she had been handed a disturbing letter from the mother a few days earlier. The handwritten note, fraught with misspellings and dated Dec. 11, 2008, said that if anything were to happen to Deborah Campbell then it was likely her husband had done it. Deborah Campbell said in the letter she feared for her life and the safety of her children.

When asked about the letter, Deborah Campbell first denied writing it, then offered several differing explanations about why she wrote it and what she meant, the appellate decision said.

There were also police reports dating back to October 2007 regarding loud arguments between the couple, and a neighbor also provided tape recordings she had made of arguments in the home in 2006 and 2007.

Deborah Campbell refused offers to take her and the children together to a safe place and eventually DYFS removed the children from the home.