So "discussion" doesn't mean they're looking to soften the stand they claim, because lo and behold they've found the public "thinks it's more important" to seek some "compromise"?
We're talking about a terror attack on U.S. soil being the spark for the entire thing, a fact which couldn't possibly stay out of the "discussion".
How would this "discussion" go, exactly?
"Terror attack" is a media created term. This was more of a disgruntled employee losing his mind.
Do you think this would have been averted if the government had access to his cell phone prior to the attack?
There was the kid who lost it in California and he openly posted on bodybuilding.com and no one did anything to stop him from acting out on his rage.
Or do you really think there's vital "terrorist" information on that phone?
If the US government wanted to shut down terrorist attacks on homeland soil there are many useful steps they can take to achieve such a goal. Mining a cell phone for information is the least important of these.