A Tale Of Two House Intel Committee Hearings - "Leaks" Vs. Collusion

"And I do want to know 'bout how serious these leakin' crimes are, sir!"


It was surreal watching the House Intelligence Committee Hearings yesterday, and coming away with the perception that the members' narratives and realities split into two irreconcilable manifestations. On the one hand there were the Repukes, including Devin Nunes of California, the Republican chairman of the committee, Trey Gowdy of SC, and Thomas Rooney of FLA, all trying desperately to steer the hearings toward the marginal issue of leaks.  To these disingenuous goofballs the paramount crime was the leaking of classified information to reporters of the NY Times, WaPo etc.. Information, let us bear in mind, that enabled us to ascertain that Michael Flynn was in communication with the Russians and discussed ways around the just issued Obama sanctions.

Btw, it was none other than Trey Gowdy - so clearly on his self-righteous high horse and in high dudgeon over past leaks, who actually leaked the name of a CIA source during the Benghazi hearings. We have no idea the degree to which that source has been compromised but one hopes Gowdy's  reckless stunt didn't jeopardize the CIA source's life or job.

Given all this bullshit leak obsession it was no surprise that the Repukes used their questions to FBI Director  Comey as a way to criticize the news coverage about the Russia investigation and chastise government officials who speak anonymously to journalists. Thus, we beheld Nunes, barking:

“We aim to determine who has leaked or facilitated leaks of classified information so that these individuals can be brought to justice."

Good luck, Sparky, you'll need it! So long as these leakers, all likely members of the intel community disgusted by Trump's antics,  keep using snapchat and its instant delete function, Nunes has as much chance bringing the leakers "to justice", as I have finding the Roswell aliens' bodies buried in my backyard.

But as I noted in previous posts, i.e. after Flynn was outed as a Russkie contact, it is the leakers who merit awards for their patriotism in the face of a fascist administration trying to get away with high crimes and misdemeanors.  Make no mistake those of us who want to get to the bottom of the Trumpian snake pit that passes for a White House, want the leaks to continue unabated - to press further investigation as occurred in Watergate. 

A recent column in the Columbia Journalism Review was even titled 'Flynn Resignation Shows Leaks Under Trump Are Working - Keep 'Em Coming"  The author argued, and I totally agree - as does John Dean- that "leaks to the press are vital to democracy".  Indeed they have the same import and value as whistle blowing on the power mongers, especially when they are acting without any transparency.  There are then, some laws that trump immediate "security" laws because they pay homage to the Constitution above all else.  (And btw, contrary to the suggestions of Gowdy et al, it is not unlawful for journalists to receive and publish leaked information from anonymous sources.)

Even conservative Joe Scarborough on his Feb. 15  show commended whoever leaked the information on Flynn, noting:

"The only reason we're finding out about it now is because a patriot did leak this to the Washington Post. Did get this information out there or else we wouldn't even have known about it."

On the other reality side of the hearing, the emphasis was where it ought to have been: on the Trump cabal's likely collusion with the Russians to grab the 2016 election, and putting the kibosh on Trump's stupid claim he was wiretapped.  Regarding the first, what we beheld first and foremost was the FBI Director confirm that there is an active investigation into the campaign of the sitting president over questions of collusion with a foreign power. .

Upholding the reality part of the hearings, Rep. Adam B.  Schiff  of California, ranking Dem member of the Committee,  held firm that the issue was about possible Russian collusion with the Trumpites in the 2016 election.

As Schiff put it:

"Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence? Yes, it is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated.”

Reinforcing Rep. Schiff's  remarks we saw Director Comey, take  the extraordinary step on Monday of announcing that the F.B.I. is investigating whether members of Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election.  Make no mistake that Comey’s  acknowledgement before the House Intelligence Committee has created a treacherous political moment for Trump, who has insisted that “Russia is fake news” that was cooked up by his political opponents to undermine his presidency. But if it really was fake news the FBI wouldn't have  expended eight months worth of resources on it....and still counting. That singular and extraordinary confirmation by Comey basically blew away all the leaking smokescreen set up by the Repuke committee members.

Indeed, Comey in real time fact-checked then slapped down a tweet sent by Trump to the effect that "NSA and FBI tell Congress that Russia did not influence electoral process". In fact, what Comey said is the FBI "had no view and no information because it was never something we looked at".  That is a different thing from asserting there was no influence on the electoral process.  But as I've pointed out before, subtle distinctions in language appear to escape Trump's mental processing.

In the midst of all the technical jargon and back and forth about "masked U.S. persons" and FISA 702s, the key blockbuster moment could well have escaped many viewers. Essentially,  Comey placed a criminal investigation at the doorstep of the White House and said bluntly agents would pursue it “no matter how long that takes.”  Typically, only extraordinary conditions would see an FBI Director admitting this in an open hearing, and to quote Comey: "This is one of those circumstances,”

Even more gratifying,  Comey confirmed once and for all that Trump is either a damned liar, or lunatic who can't discern fact from fiction.. He did this when he dismissed Trump’s claim that he was wiretapped by his predecessor during the campaign, an unfounded accusation that has served as a distraction in the public debate over Russian election interference. Comey’s response (to Schiff's question about Trump's tweet) that "no information" was available to show any wiretapping had the analogous effect of squashing a bug with a sledgehammer.  But this didn't appear to phase another bug, Sean Spicer, who simply doubled down on his simple -minded claim there was still "something there".

On a related note, it is time the media get real and cease reporting that "the White House fired back" whenever these nitwits react to a statement or - in the case yesterday - to Comey's exposure of Trump's nutso claim as bollocks. In fact the only thing the Trumpies are firing back is blanks.  A serious media wouldn't dignify their "responses" by reporting them.

This ought to send chills down the spines of all those Repukes who attempted to twist the hearing into outing the leakers, as well as the inveterate Trump backers, especially now that their lunatic man is doubling down on his idiotic claims.  As Sen. Richard Blumenthal noted, with Comey's testimony we're now in a constitutional crisis and this may require a Supreme Court subpoena of Trump.

A key test for Neal Gorsuch in his questioning tomorrow - given such a subpoena grows more and more likely -is whether he will try to block it. Or, will he "let justice be done or the heavens fall".

Bill Maher Gets It Wrong About Snowden Last Night

Look, Bill Maher's 'Real Time' is one of my favorite discussion shows. Readers will note how a number of times I've earlier credited Bill with exposing assorted morons on his show, such as Horace Cooper, Abby Huntsman, 'Kennedy' and others. But there are times Maher gets it wrong, way wrong, and one wonders whether some residue of moron DNA from past guests like Cooper didn't rub off.

A case in point was a brief interlude last night when the issue of the Quinnipiac poll (showing 55% of registered voters believe Snowden is a whistleblower and not a traitor) came up and Bill challenged it and Prof. Cornell West, by asserting: a) Snowden didn't reveal anything we didn't already know and b) he wasn't a whistleblower because that implies revealing lawless actions and the FISA courts approved what he disclosed.

Bill, Bill, Bill!

Look at what you're saying! Let's apply some logic here as well as a knowledge of recent history. First, if it indeed was true that Snowden didn't reveal anything we didn't already know, then how explain that the national security state and its assorted political class enablers and imps went bat shit crazy in the wake?  Obviously, he had to have revealed new information, including: that FISA courts were rubber stamping mass search warrants in violation of the 4th amendment - to approve NSA surveillance, and that online companies including Microsoft, Skype, Google,  Facebook, etc. were all on board with it, despite their protestations. Also, that NSA had turned its spying eyes to friends - as in the European Union, as well as to South America.

The publication of Snowden's revelations was such that The Guardian newspaper site was even put off limits to U.S. military personnel! See e.g.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/01/us-military-blocks-guardian-troops   According to the article, the block is "theater wide" and:

"the Pentagon and the US army told the Guardian that automated content filters installed on Department of Defense (DoD) networks to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of classified information had blocked access to selected aspects of the Guardian’s website."

Hence, it is ludicrous to claim all the material disclosed was already known!

The other Maher claim that the actions disclosed "didn't break any laws", falls afoul in terms of language and semantics. I already explained multiple times how the illegal was made legal in terms of the FISA 1978 laws which had been implemented to ensure civil liberties were protected. But then the Bushies began a series of mass illegal wiretaps in 2005, and when this was revealed, they needed cover to protect their sorry asses.

Instead of holding these vermin war criminals responsible, successive congresses - including DEMS I might add-  punked out like the weasels they are.  First they rewrote the 1978 FISA law under which the Bush bunch would have been found guilty of criminality (violating their oaths to preserve and protect the constitution), and they made the actions of the Bushies legal. They used the misbegotten "Patriot Act" to try to justify this.  That is, the use of an alternative, rubber- stamping FISA "court" (actually more often than not 1 or 2 judges, awakened at night to put their John Hancocks in place)  that issued mass warrants as opposed to the selective, individual warrants that are mandated under the 4th amendment.

In this devious way, they managed to produce the illusion of legality without in fact having legality. It was all a bait and switch deception, and the marks were the American People. The congressional traitors to the constitution then compounded this by approving an extension of this FISA law imitation in 2011, which Obama also gave approval to.  The sad and true fact here, Bill, is that we have been under the operation of an illegal FISA "law" since 2008.  None of our congress rats have told the people this, why would they?

As one percipient Denver Post letter writer put it in the June 19 edition:

"All you need to do is enact legislation approving tyranny and, as if by definition, tyranny becomes lawful. Add to that a “secret interpretation” of the law. Lawful? How are citizens supposed to abide by the law when it is subject to secret interpretation? It doesn’t get much more arbitrary than that. "

That Bill, a self-proclaimed libertarian, couldn't understand that in responding with his diatribe against Snowden last night is deplorable. I thought of all the remaining talking heads at least he might have gotten it right, and recognized Snowden is indeed a whistleblower, never mind what the state-supported propagandists and PR mills say. But evidently he too is overwhelmingly taken in, as too many Americans are.

One last thing: if anyone really believes that Snowden has given us "nothing new" they need to link to the Guardian website (above) and read through all the published disclosures. Then, come back with a straight face and tell me there's nothing new there.

No wonder this country now approaches at least a simple majority having mental illness. If critical thinking is the first casualty of a people, and logic is so deformed by media and gov't PR that it is impossible or rare to see exercised on the broad national stage, then mental illness must result. The only way out of this tragic morass is that more people are able to consistently think for themselves, and that means with criticality- and not trusting anything a gov't or media mouthpiece says unless it can be independently verified!

MSNBC: Waxing Way More Neoliberal Than Liberal by Defending the Surveillance-War State

The reality of our modern, interconnected world is that information matters. Also, the authenticity and trustworthiness of sources. At specific times these become much more important than at others, such as in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives (mainly Iraqis) and trillions of dollars. Also, in the exposure of the extent of NSA surveillance on all of us by Edward Snowden, and the more recent news that the FISA courts approved a much broader definition of "relevant" to justify vacuuming up tens of millions of Americans' online and phone files indiscriminately.

As the Wall Street Journal reported this morning (and the WSJ is not exactly a left wing redoubt):

"The National Security Agency's ability to gather phone data on millions of Americans hinges on a secret court ruling that redefined a single word: "relevant."

In classified orders starting in the mid-2000s, the court accepted that "relevant" could be broadened to permit an entire database of records on millions of people, in contrast to a more conservative interpretation widely applied in criminal cases, in which only some of those records would likely be allowed."


Well, what that means, essentially, is also that the definition of "terrorist" or "terror suspect" was expanded as I noted in an earlier blog ('Between the Skeleton Key and the COG"). Thus, the conservative definition was tossed out the window, just as the more judicious, conservative FISA court was tossed by the Bushies in 2006, to permit more widespread searches, often without approval of a proper FISA court- issued warrant. Solution? Just change the FISA law to make it compatible with the warrantless searches earlier conducted. We can thank our rat-ass congress critters for doing that.

The issue now before us then is WHO in the mainstream, corporate -owned media will tell the people the truth, echoing William Greider's book title (from 1991): 'Who Will Tell The People?'. The answer appears to be very very few even at the once proverbial :"liberal" network MSNBC.  As I previously noted (last Mail Brane)  Chris Hayes remains the only one who will tell it like it is and doesn't knee jerk diss Edward Snowden like his colleagues, e.g. Melissa Harris-Perry, Ed Schultz, and even Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow. All the latter appear to be captured by the "Man" and are spouting his bollocks to spread the PR that Snowden is-was the problem not the violation of our 4th amendment rights.

Thus Jeff Cohen's observation in his recent blog,

"The bipartisan consensus in support of our bloated Military/Surveillance State –which so  undermines our society as a whole– is reflected in Congress and both the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as mainstream media."


Appears to have validity and includes MSNBC. In terms of picking our culprits, whom I also term Neoliberal propagandizers, Cohen is blunt and hits on MSNBC's claimed liberal mouthpieces (except for Chris Hayes):

"a number of MSNBC talking heads have reacted to the Snowden disclosures like Fox News hosts did when they were in hysterical damage control mode for Bush – complete with ridiculously fact-free claims and national chauvinism that we’ve long come to expect from the “fair & balanced” channel.

As Snowden arrived in Russia from Hong Kong, MSNBC host Ed Schultz blustered on   about Snowden as a “punk” and “coward.” Railing about the “security of the country” in tones Hannity would approve of, Schultz questioned Snowden’s patriotism and credibility, asking: “If the United States of America is doing something so egregiously wrong in its surveillance program, how come he’s the only one speaking up?

  In O’Reilly-like blissful ignorance, Schultz seemed unaware of the three NSA whistleblowers who’d loudly spoken up way earlier than Snowden – and gathered for an illuminating USA Today interview a week before his tirade.


MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry has been condemning Snowden by contrasting him with civil disobedients who “love their country” and submit to arrest – while Snowden just wants to “save his own skin.”   She proclaimed: “This is different. This is dangerous to our nation.” Should we similarly dismiss Dan Ellsberg, who leaked the top secret Pentagon Papers to a dozen newspapers in 1971 by going on the lam from the FBI. Or Watergate’s “Deep Throat,” who saved his own skin by hiding his identity for 30 years after leaking secrets that helped crash the Nixon presidency?

  In a bizarre monologue attacking Snowden (who’s risked plenty, in my view), Harris-Perry hailed those who engage in civil disobedience for being willing “to risk your own freedom, your own body in order to bring attention to something that needs to be known. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested, attacked, smeared. Nelson Mandela went to prison for 27 years.”  Nelson Mandela? He wasn’t a civil disobedient who gave himself up. He was a fugitive, fleeing the apartheid police. He was on the lam domestically, like Snowden is now internationally. And some reports indicate that South African authorities were able to nab Mandela thanks to the U.S. CIA    

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has also disappointed. After doing a typically thorough presentation on the force-down of President’s Morales’ plane, she ended her report by expressing displeasure only that Washington had apparently gotten allies to go out on the limb “for nothing.” Her objection to the harassment seemed to be: it hadn’t succeeded. I didn’t hear opposition to the action had Snowden actually been on board and apprehended. "


I basically concur with these takes, especially on Maddow, who has earlier shown that she is not the pure- bred liberal she originally portrayed. For example, in an earlier blog: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/03/rachel-maddow-blows-it-on-her-gun.html I noted how she used the issue of gun reform to give credence to the "Oswald did it"  propaganda pushed by the now well discredited Warren Commission. As many long time  JFK  researchers have noted, this is the misshapen version of history pushed by those who would keep the people in the dark in terms of the Kennedy assassination.  Michael Parenti, author of the 'The Dirty Truth' has perhaps been most articulate in explaining what's at stake, what's been done by those who spread the "Oswald did it" hokum:


"To know the truth about the assassination of John Kennedy is to call into question the state security system and the entire politico-economic order it protects."

The question then becomes why is Maddow helping to protect this politico-economic order? A true liberal would not. Another disquieting aspect is how Maddow has never come out four square against the chained CPI plan to cut Social Security, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/03/asking-rachel-maddow-to-explain-herself.html

These are not small or insignificant issues, any more than Edward Snowden's disclosures concerning illegal (yes it is!) dragnet surveillance which certainly violates the 4th amendment.

Sadly, it appears Jeff Cohen is correct, that in certain instances and issues MSNBC can be as far off as FOX.

But then, this may be the nature of corporate -owned media. At least we must be thankful for some - like Chris Hayes- who won't just roll over for the power mongers! Truly courageous people who are able to articulate opposition to the state and its surveillance-war imperatives, instead of peddling PR pabulum that seeks to erode citizens' perceptions. Thereby converting citizens into accessories to their own constitutional subversion and people into sheeple.

WAAAAH! Snowden-Chasing Journalists Get to Spend the Day in Cuba

"“The state of surveillance and perpetual war are one and the same. The U.S. government’s rationale for pervasive snooping is the “war on terror,” the warfare state under whatever name…….Those at the top of the U.S. government insist that Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning have betrayed it. But that’s backward. Putting its money on vast secrecy and military violence instead of democracy, the government has betrayed Snowden and Manning and the rest of us. “ – Normon Solomon

-------
We learned this morning that over 30 journalists, raving bloodhounds of the Neoliberal Corporate Empire (who make even the paparazzi look like gentlemen,) crowded onto an Aeroflot A330 Airbus at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport, hoping to buttonhole Edward Snowden. And undoubtedly harass him with a blizzard of dumbass, predatory, Neoliberal corporate punk questions for the 15 -hour duration of a flight to Havana, Cuba. Didn’t work out that way, as Snowden, who is definitely smarter than these yellow muckrakers (who’ve been piling bile on him the past week or more) clearly set them all up.

As one Brit put it in ditty form (based on ‘The Scarlet Pimpernel’) in a comment on the UK Guardian this morning:

“They seek him here, they seek him there,
The journos seek him everywhere.
Is he in Hell, is he in Heaven?
That damned, elusive Eddie Snowden.”

Meanwhile another commentator pointedly wrote:

“Stupidity of modern journalism - ambulance chasing instead of investigating”


While another tweeted:

“Thank heavens that most of the corporate hacks are on their way to Havana via Aeroflot airlines -- and without the customary pampering they are so used to. That leaves far fewer eyes searching for Snowden”

Ah yes, a 15 -odd hour flight to Cuba! What better punishment for ambulance chasing pseudo-journalists and state propagandists who aren’t interested in the real story: how the country has ceased to adhere to the rule of law since the Bushie illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the subsequent illegal renditions and tortures violating all international laws and the Geneva Conventions. In truth, all the Bushites ought to have been tried for treason, put on trial and hung. But what happened? All were allowed to escape any accountability! Even some of the worst, most egregious lawbreaking in the form of Bushie illegal wiretaps (violating the 1978 FISA laws) was ultimately re-written to give it the patina of “legal” benediction in 2008 by a pack of traitors in congress. And now these hollow, howling douchebags have the audacity to call Snowden a traitor?

Meanwhile, the usual parade of blow-dried hack punditry calumniated UK Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald on the Sunday talk shows. Of course, anyone who watches this weekly bullshit even occasionally knows they’re usually just PR platforms for the usual corporate, political and media whore rats. Sadly, Bob Schieffer, who used to have some gravitas, has fallen into the same Neoliberal hack mold as the likes of David Gregory and Georgie Stephanopoulis.


When you sweep away all the crappola, corporo-buzzshit etc. what is Snowden’s real crime? Humiliating the Corporate-War-Bankster- System entrenched in this country. Read more at:
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/19/snowdens_real_crime_humiliating_the_state/

Excerpt:

“Snowden’s crime, if you will, was that he disrupted the state’s ability to protect its monopoly of violence by exposing its widespread surveillance activities. He did this despite the widely claimed fears of interested parties that doing so would “undermine national security,” and in the face of the state’s insistence that these activities are justified and justifiably secret. In this sense, the fact that he challenged the prerogatives of the state itself makes his alleged crime so much more transgressive than, for example, merely lying to Congress about weapons of mass destruction, starting a war with a random nation in which tens of thousands die, or torturing rendered persons. None of these latter crimes are a threat to the state itself, and for that reason may be readily forgiven and forgotten. Manning and Snowden are, however, “great criminals” in that their actions embarrassed and undermined state power. They can never be forgiven or forgotten.

So, for a significant portion of the public, there seems to be an — open or perhaps grudging — admiration of Snowden because he has dared to challenge the state’s monopoly on violence.”

The last part is critical: Because if the entrenched perma-war spy enclave (in this case, more technically, the corrupt, corporate—warmonger-security SYSTEM) has such a monopoly on violence, say that it can exercise the prerogative to assassinate courageous leaders like JFK who challenge it-  then what we have is endemic tyranny and not any liberty.

See also: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/norman-solomon/50228/the-pursuit-of-edward-snowden-washington-in-a-rage-striving-to-run-the-world

Stay tuned as the Snowden saga continues. In the meantime, global citizens embodying true patriotism who value liberty over a specious security, and are steadfastly opposed to the corrupt U.S. SYSTEM (not the country - see e.g.  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/09/america-haters-uhhno-system-haters.html)  and aren’t brainwashed by the State's propagandists. are hoping Snowden ultimately finds a refuge out of the grasp of "the Empire"!

-----
P.S. I will join the ranks of those calling for Snowden's head on the very day when the rat bastards who blew up Cubana Airlines 455 over Barbados on Oct. 6, 1976 - killing all  73 innocents on board - are brought to justice,  including Luis Posada Carriles and the CIA whelps who planned it.  Until then the U.S. media hypocrites and their political allies can go fuck themselves.