Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

struggle4progress

(118,041 posts)
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 02:01 AM Jun 2014

Here's Why Snowden Plea Negotiations Are Going Nowhere

Michael B. Kelley
Jun. 10, 2014, 1:21 PM

... It is unclear when or if the former NSA systems administrator gave up access to the cache of up to 1.5 million documents, which is suspected to contain military intel. Snowden recently told NBC that he "destroyed" them but had previously told the New York Times that he gave them all to journalists he met in Hong Kong ...

"To a foreign intelligence service, Snowden is priceless," Robert Caruso, a former assistant command security manager in the Navy and a consultant, told Business Insider recently. "He can be exploited again and again" ...

“If he came back and told everything he knows, then perhaps some accommodation could be reached,” a senior U.S. intelligence official told The Post, noting that plea negotiations "are difficult if you start by saying you’re a hero and wanting a parade" ...

That question of when/if Snowden gave up access to the largest cache is critical to any deal. It is also crucial to understanding Snowden as either a true whistleblower for the global privacy rights or an indiscriminate leaker who also took more than a million documents and defected in Russia.


http://www.businessinsider.com/obstacles-to-any-snowden-plea-deal-2014-6

40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Here's Why Snowden Plea Negotiations Are Going Nowhere (Original Post) struggle4progress Jun 2014 OP
please provide source for the notion.. grasswire Jun 2014 #1
It's a recent web-rumor. I have no reason to suspect there are any serious talks struggle4progress Jun 2014 #2
nothing but wild speculation, then nt grasswire Jun 2014 #14
Not exactly wild speculation: it points out where Snowden's difficulties struggle4progress Jun 2014 #16
Al Gore understands the value of Snowden's actions. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #3
"... he wasn’t fully aware of the facts ..." struggle4progress Jun 2014 #5
I doubt that the Chinese or Russians were at all surprised by Snowden't revelations. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #6
Here's what the Church Committee says early in its Volume V struggle4progress Jun 2014 #12
You are absolutely right fasttense Jun 2014 #13
IMO, the biggest obstacle is the verbiage on the SF 312 he signed...nt MADem Jun 2014 #4
Time and more information about who was placed under surveillance, what the criteria was for JDPriestly Jun 2014 #7
Good article--amazing how "surveilled" people are on a day-to-day basis without any NSA help. MADem Jun 2014 #8
There were whistleblowers before Snowden who told us what was going on. Gore points that out. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #9
Told "us." Didn't tell the Chinese, and the Russians. MADem Jun 2014 #10
Wyden made Clapper look sympathetic? Are you freaking lkidding me? grasswire Jun 2014 #15
In the world of people who are not partisan. Clapper ran 'round to the political talk shows, MADem Jun 2014 #17
as I asked, in what world? in whose world? grasswire Jun 2014 #19
In the real world, in the world where people aren't focused on political party preference MADem Jun 2014 #20
that is not true grasswire Jun 2014 #21
There were supposed to be TWO SESSIONS. MADem Jun 2014 #24
the notion that Wyden hurt himself is ridiculous grasswire Jun 2014 #22
No, it isn't ridiculous. It is accurate. MADem Jun 2014 #23
still making things up, I see grasswire Jun 2014 #25
Now you are starting to be rude, hurtful and disruptive and I don't like it. MADem Jun 2014 #28
....in YOUR mind, YOUR opinion. grasswire Jun 2014 #31
In the mind of anyone reading this exchange. nt MADem Jun 2014 #32
sure grasswire Jun 2014 #35
You first. You're the one who likes to make everything PERSONAL. nt MADem Jun 2014 #36
Uh, so we shouldn't ask any questions that might put wrongdoers in the awkward position of snot Jun 2014 #29
What does that sentence even mean? Who's "we?" I didn't see you at that hearing. MADem Jun 2014 #30
WOW !!! - Wyden Is The Jerk, Because Good Guy Clapper Was Forced To Lie ??? WillyT Jun 2014 #38
amazing, isn't it? grasswire Jun 2014 #40
You have misunderstood the Congressional immunity struggle4progress Jun 2014 #11
I can't do better than S4P's response at 11. They ARE allowed to talk freely, as are Reps, so long MADem Jun 2014 #18
you obviously don't know Ron Wyden. grasswire Jun 2014 #26
He disregarded the instructions of the committee chair and he asked a MADem Jun 2014 #27
Laughable. grasswire Jun 2014 #33
I've had enough of your snarky, personal comments and childish invective. MADem Jun 2014 #34
I AM going to defend Senator Wyden and Ed Snowden... grasswire Jun 2014 #37
You aren't doing that. You're engaging in personal insult and making yourself look MADem Jun 2014 #39

struggle4progress

(118,041 posts)
2. It's a recent web-rumor. I have no reason to suspect there are any serious talks
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 02:42 AM
Jun 2014

in progress. But there are many current links claiming such talks. There was considerable buzz in mainstream media about six months ago

In any case, what I posted indicates where his real problems will lie, should he try to negotiate a deal

Had he merely released some limited info, related to widespread metadata collection in the US, he might be in reasonably good shape right now: it would be fairly easy (I expect) to construct substantial political pressure on his behalf

The problem, from the beginning, is that his releases seem to go far beyond metadata collection in the US and seem to involve foreign intelligence activities of the NSA: that fact entirely changes the situation

struggle4progress

(118,041 posts)
16. Not exactly wild speculation: it points out where Snowden's difficulties
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 02:11 PM
Jun 2014

will lie, should he hope to return to the US

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
3. Al Gore understands the value of Snowden's actions.
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 03:35 AM
Jun 2014

The former vice president explained that while he wasn’t fully aware of the facts surrounding Snowden’s case, he said the government contractor didn’t appear to have much of a choice but to leak the information he had to journalists.

“It’s not clear to me that reporting what he discovered to his supervisors was a viable option for him,” Gore said. “But I think what he has disclosed has made possible an absolutely essential conversation.”

. . . .
“I wrote about this in my last book and had some of the revelations that Snowden put out really were put out by some other senior whistleblowers in the NSA who were kind of ignored. We had them. There were interviews with them. I talked with them,” Gore said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/al-gore-edward-snowden-important-service-107652.html?hp=r2

Gore makes this point. I have said the same thing in different words on DU:

“Democracy is among other things a state of mind,” he said. “And if people are given the feeling that they have to be careful what they say lest it be misinterpreted because somebody’s keeping a record, that chills the First Amendment rights that are at the very core of what American democracy is all about. This is really dangerous.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/al-gore-edward-snowden-important-service-107652.html?hp=r2

I wonder how many of the Snowden critics have ever talked to someone from Eastern Europe about the surveillance under Communism.

struggle4progress

(118,041 posts)
5. "... he wasn’t fully aware of the facts ..."
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 03:55 AM
Jun 2014

I think you'd find most of us standing up for Snowden if he'd merely gone after NSA surveillance of Americans. It would have been a limited and probably winnable political fight

But he didn't do that: he chose to expose a significant amount about the NSA's foreign signals intelligence work. He went to Hong Kong and told the Chinese something about what the NSA was doing. Then he apparently spent some time in the Russian embassy in Hong Kong, after which he headed off to Russia and seems now to be in the arms of the Russian intelligence, since his "lawyer" there has close ties to the Russian intelligence services. Quite a lot of what's been reported as "coming from Snowden" has nothing whatsoever to do with Americans' constitutional rights

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
6. I doubt that the Chinese or Russians were at all surprised by Snowden't revelations.
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:05 AM
Jun 2014

They know what we are doing and probably do what they can when it comes to surveillance themselves but without the technical ability we have.

The people who did not know are the American people.

The surveillance game is par for the course in international relations (although we have more capacity than any countries other than Russia or China I would guess). This program involved placing Americans who had contacts with foreign residents under surveillance. That has been going on for a long time. We don't know the extent to which other Americans were under surveillance.

Have you read the testimony given by the NSA representative before the Church Committee?

I recommend it. Inevitably this kind of surveillance takes a political turn. The targets (watch list) has to be picked. And deciding who should be on the watch list is a political decision. That is incompatible with a free society.

Remember how Martin Luther King was placed under surveillance? The NSA program is designed to make such surveillance possible at the click of a mouse.

struggle4progress

(118,041 posts)
12. Here's what the Church Committee says early in its Volume V
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 06:46 AM
Jun 2014

on the NSA:

... The value of its work has been and will continue to be inestimable. We are determined not to impair the excellent contributions made by the NSA to the defense of our country. To make sure this committee does not interfere with ongoing intelligence activities, we have had to be exceedingly careful, for the techniques of the NSA are of the most sensitive and fragile character. We have prepared ourselves exhaustively; we have circumscribed the area of inquiry to include only those that represent abuses of power; and we have planned the format for today's hearing with great care, so as not to venture beyond our stated objectives ... NSA has been cooperative with the committee ...

The Report is available at the Senate Intelligence website

You are free, I suppose, to make whatever ideological presuppositions you wish, regarding what material, among the 1.5 million documents alleged obtained by Snowden, might or might not have been known by other governments before the materials were released. But such presuppositions must be regarded as speculative. Snowden himself could not possibly have evaluated 1.5 million pages before releasing them

To date, several of his releases have provoked diplomatic crises between other nations

Nor is there any real evidence that anyone in particular in is control of Snowden's materials. Assange, for example, recently released some material Greenwald loudly refused to release. The Register recently published material, allegedly from Snowden, about UK tapping of cables in the Middle East -- and what connection could that possibly have to your defense that Snowden is merely alerting Americans to the dangers of domestic surveillance?

The fact is: the Snowden case is really rather opaque. Is he a well-intended but naive wonder-boy? Is he a wannabe Chinese agent, a US agent planted in Russia, or an NSA contractor recruited by the Russians, or a double agent, or a triple agent? Did the NSA discover he was trying to download files and sucker him into downloading a bit of sexy stuff and a lot of trash? We could be deep in Mirror-Puzzle-Land here, so there's really no way to know

The domestic surveillance issues are certainly winnable political fights if approached properly -- but hitching that wagon to Snowden is a losing proposition. The nicest view one could hold of Snowden is that he seems bright and well-intentioned but is fundamentally bonkers. A lot of Americans will gladly climb on a wagon fluttering flags No Domestic Surveillance! And at least half of them will jump right back off if the wagon also flies banners Let's Tell Our Spy Secrets to Other Countries!

 

fasttense

(17,301 posts)
13. You are absolutely right
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 08:50 AM
Jun 2014

There is evidence that governments around the world knew what the NSA was doing. Merkel indicates her approval of the NSA spying earlier, before Snowden released information showing that she was spied on as well. What they didn't know was that political leaders and corporate tools were systematically spied on to gain corporate and political information, not to gain information on terrorist or other spies. It was ok with Merkel as long as only the bottom 99% were being spied on by the NSA. When she found out she was being spied on as well, then it became a problem.

I suspect the same thing is true around the world. Political leaders are fine with average citizens being studied, cataloged and spied on. It's just when they, or their corporate honey pots, get treated like an average citizen that political leaders voice their complaints.

It was only the mass of citizenry that wasn't aware of the NSA's illegal activities. The politicians and corporate world were just fine with it, until it was them.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
7. Time and more information about who was placed under surveillance, what the criteria was for
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:08 AM
Jun 2014

selecting those to be on the watch list, are likely to be Snowden's biggest advantages.

Have you read the testimony in the Church Committee report?

I recommend that and also this article written by a reporter for NPR who allowed someone to watch her computer activity.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/10/320347267/project-eavesdrop-an-experiment-at-monitoring-my-home-office?sc=17&f=1001&utm_source=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app

MADem

(135,425 posts)
8. Good article--amazing how "surveilled" people are on a day-to-day basis without any NSA help.
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:23 AM
Jun 2014

Those smart phones and apps and corporate interests are too clever by half. It's not just corporate interests--it's hackers, and jealous spouses too.

I have a dumb phone--I'm sure my dull texts aren't nearly as exciting as all the info on those smart devices. I have never had an expectation of privacy on the internet, either.

I don't think Snowden can overcome his non-disclosure agreement. Had he gone to his buddy Rand Paul, sure--Rand could have saved him, because a Senator can't be prosecuted for anything he says on the Senate floor. But giving his material to people all over the world not cleared to have it? He's America's 21st Century Kim Philby, trapped in a "I'll Really Give You Something To Cry About" country, dependent on the good offices of Innkeeper Vlad. He wants to come home, he said--but he'll have to do it by way of the federal prison system, or not at all.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
9. There were whistleblowers before Snowden who told us what was going on. Gore points that out.
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:38 AM
Jun 2014

But the documents that Snowden revealed are what shocked those of us who view Snowden as having done the right thing regardless of agreements.

Not even senators are allowed to talk freely about classified information. That strikes me as contradicting the Constitution's award of immunity to them, but apparently that is how I understand it.

That's why they have closed hearings. So that secrets are not revealed on the floor of Congress. Ron Wyden hinted at hideous secrets about the NSA programs being kept from us but if you watch him speak, you can tell he was holding his tongue, not daring to say what was in his heart.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
10. Told "us." Didn't tell the Chinese, and the Russians.
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:58 AM
Jun 2014
A Senator cannot be prosecuted for anything he or she says on the Senate floor. That was Daniel Ellsberg's first attempt, when he was trying to get the PP out--to try to get Sen. Fullbright and others to introduce portions of the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record. They didn't do it because they had designs on greater leadership and were playing the "seek consensus amongst colleagues" game (something asswipes like Rand Paul don't worry about). At the end of the day it was Mike Gravel who made it happen, IIRC, and only then right before the NYT was going to take the leap and publish anyway.

Ron Wyden was an asshole, frankly--he asked a question that put the person being interrogated (that Weasel Clapper, I'm not "praising" him by a long shot) in an impossible situation. No matter HOW Clapper answered, his response was "wrong." He was given a choice between LYING or REVEALING CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. He couldn't refuse to answer--that would put him in contempt. He chose LYING, and Wyden's disregard for the witness is why Clapper didn't get "sanctioned." Wyden put a gun to Clapper's head and left him without any choice. Wyden should have asked that question in closed session, so he didn't put Clapper in an impossible situation, or he should have gotten his fortitude together and made a declarative statement and taken the heat ALL BY HIMSELF, using his own powers of immunity, instead of phrasing his comments in the form of a question to play "Gotcha" with Clapper.

What he ended up doing was making Clapper sympathetic. It was a boneheaded move.


Members of the United States Congress enjoy a similar parliamentary privilege as members of the British Parliament; that is, they cannot be prosecuted for anything they say on the floor of the House or Senate. They also enjoy the right to be present in Congress: that is, they may be in prison or jail the rest of the time, but they have the right to attend Congressional sessions, speak on the floor, vote, etc. These rights are specified in the Constitution and have been fairly uncontroversial in U.S. history. Courts have consistently interpreted them very narrowly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_immunity#United_States

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
15. Wyden made Clapper look sympathetic? Are you freaking lkidding me?
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 12:01 PM
Jun 2014

In what world??

Clapper is widely reviled for lying to Congress. Wyden is hailed as a hero.

In what milieu is Clapper considered sympathetic for being picked on by the bad old senator?????

Perhaps in the halls of the surveillance state.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
17. In the world of people who are not partisan. Clapper ran 'round to the political talk shows,
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 02:34 PM
Jun 2014

sheepishly shrugging and admitting that he was between a rock and a hard place.

It's not cool to ask a person to either lie--because THEY, unlike the legislator, are NOT enjoying protected speech while on the floor of Congress--or to disclose classified material illegally. It's like asking the guy "Which crime would you like to commit, because I've given you two choices and you ARE gonna take one, like it or not."

This is not about chit-chat in the "halls of the surveillance state." It's about a legislator whose speech on the floor IS protected, telling a guy he's got to either lie or break the law by revealing classified information. And if he doesn't answer at all, he's in contempt.

It was an amateur hour move, playing to the crowd in the cheap seats. It accomplished nothing. Made the legislator look petty and did make that Mephistopheles Clapper look like he was being bullied.

Not his finest hour.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
19. as I asked, in what world? in whose world?
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 03:08 PM
Jun 2014

Your protectionism of a thug is astounding, even with the understanding that you used to work in a security clearance world.

So now the criticisms of the surveillance state are a partisan issue??

And Clapper is a victim?

The world is turned upside down, in your arena.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
20. In the real world, in the world where people aren't focused on political party preference
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 03:16 PM
Jun 2014

outside of election season.

Don't be making this about ME. That's just not on, so stop it. It's not "my" arena--it's Wyden's. He fucked up.

That's why no one is prosecuting Clapper, what, a year later, now?

I'm telling you, Clapper did himself some good, and Wyden helped him, and hurt himself by putting Clapper in an untenable position where he had no choice.

He was in a LIE or REVEAL CLASSIFIED MATERIAL conundrum, and Wyden put him there.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
21. that is not true
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 03:49 PM
Jun 2014

1. Wyden submitted the question in advance.

2. Wyden has stated that he would not have asked the question if Clapper's staff had asked him not to do so.

3. Clapper refused to correct the record when given the opportunity to do so., and finally was forced to do so after the Snowden revelations.

4. Clapper declined to answer other questions in the hearing.


"It’s very hard to misinterpret the question," Wyden said. "But let’s give somebody some slack if you want to. I don’t find that credible, but let’s say somebody does. What’s more troubling is after the hearing was over, they made a conscious and deliberate decision not to correct the record."

"They chose to make these statements in public that weren’t accurate," Wyden added. "They could have declined to answer the question in an open hearing. They have declined to answer questions in an open hearing before. At that hearing, he declined to answer other questions."

MADem

(135,425 posts)
24. There were supposed to be TWO SESSIONS.
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 10:09 PM
Jun 2014

Clapper was prepared to answer that question in CLOSED SESSION, not in open session. That is why he was VISIBLY flummoxed.

Senator Feinstein WARNED Wyden and the rest of the committee at the start of the hearing against asking questions to which the answers were classified in the OPEN session, and to save them for the CLOSED session.

Wyden disobeyed this directive from the chair.

You don't have to reply twice, you can edit your comments, you know.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
22. the notion that Wyden hurt himself is ridiculous
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 03:52 PM
Jun 2014

Please show some evidence of that from a reputable source or transcript.

People of many political persuasions have hailed his actions as courageous protection of our Constitutional rights. I have seen no one but YOU say he hurt himself.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
23. No, it isn't ridiculous. It is accurate.
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 10:06 PM
Jun 2014
http://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2014/01/clapper-ssci/

.....some have concluded that DNI Clapper “lied to Congress,” as the New York Times editorial board put it last week. Some go further to suggest that the DNI should be prosecuted and imprisoned, as Sen. Rand Paul did yesterday.

It is of course wrong for officials to make false statements, as DNI Clapper did when he denied that NSA collects “any type of data at all” on ordinary Americans. But did the DNI actually “lie to Congress”?

In ordinary usage, lying usually connotes an intent to deceive. In this case, DNI Clapper could not have intended to deceive the Senate Intelligence Committee because the true answer to Senator Wyden’s question was already known to Senator Wyden and to all the other members of the Committee (as noted the other day by ODNI General Counsel Robert S. Litt). Committee members could not have been misled by the DNI’s response, and it makes no sense to say that he intended to mislead them.

What remains true is that others — especially attentive members of the public were deceived by the DNI’s statement. If DNI Clapper “lied,” it was to them, not to the Senate Intelligence Committee, that he did so. But the Committee permitted that deception to occur, and to persist, and so it must take its share of responsibility for that. Yet unlike the DNI (who apologized, several months after the fact, saying he misunderstood the question), the Committee has not acknowledged any failure on its part.

When Senator Wyden posed his question in open session, he was evidently attempting to corner the DNI and to compel him to involuntarily reveal classified information about the NSA bulk collection program. At the time, it seemed to be a clever rhetorical maneuver. Even if the DNI refused to respond or requested to answer the question in closed session, that would have indicated that something pertinent was being concealed.

However, by answering falsely, the DNI turned the tables on Senator Wyden and the Senate Intelligence Committee. Whether by design or not (almost certainly not), the DNI’s response challenged the Committee to make its own choice either to disclose classified information about the NSA program — in order to rebut and correct the DNI’s answer — or else to acquiesce in the dissemination of false information to the public.


Funny that, how WYDEN--who HAD immunity and knew the truth--didn't correct the record, isn't it?

It was a cheap shot, and that's why there has been no frog marching. Further, Wyden completely disregarded the instructions of the committee chairwoman when he asked that question in open session.


http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/07/dishonor-in-high-places-sandbagging-the-intelligence-chief-again/

Wyden is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and had long known about the court-approved metadata program that has since become public knowledge. He knew Clapper’s answer was incorrect. But Wyden, like Clapper, was also under an oath not to divulge the story. In posing this question, he knew Clapper would have to breach his oath of secrecy, lie, prevaricate, or decline to reply except in executive session—a tactic that would implicitly have divulged the secret. The committee chairman, Senator Diane Feinstein, may have known what Wyden had in mind. In opening the hearing she reminded senators it would be followed by a closed session and said, “I’ll ask that members refrain from asking questions here that have classified answers.” Not dissuaded, Wyden sandbagged he director.

This was a vicious tactic, regardless of what you think of the later Snowden disclosures. Wyden learned nothing, the public learned nothing, and an honest and unusually forthright public servant has had his credibility trashed.[1] Unfortunately the tactic has a pedigree, but for that, we’ve got to wind the clock back forty years.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/04/clapper-lie-congress-nsa-national-intelligence-counsel

“When we pointed out Mr Clapper’s mistake to him, he was surprised and distressed. I spoke with a staffer for Senator Wyden several days later and told him that although Mr Clapper recognized that his testimony was inaccurate, it could not be corrected publicly because the program involved was classified.”

Litt concluded: “This incident shows the difficulty of discussing classified information in an unclassified setting and the danger of inferring a person’s state of mind from extemporaneous answers given under pressure. Indeed, it would have been irrational for Mr. Clapper to lie at this hearing, since every member of the committee was already aware of the program.”



The only people Clapper was hiding the classified information from was the people watching CSpan--everyone else at the table ALREADY knew the answer. Wyden was grandstanding.


In July, Clapper apologized to the Senate Intelligence Committee for his “clearly erroneous” testimony.

“My response was clearly erroneous — for which I apologize,” Clapper wrote. “While my staff acknowledged the error to Senator [Ron] Wyden’s staff soon after the hearing, I can now openly correct it because the existence of the metadata collection program has been declassified.”
During a open hearing in March, Clapper said “no” when Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, asked if the NSA collected “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”

Obama said Clapper had “acknowledged that he could have handled it better” and spoken to Wyden personally about the matter.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/197060-obama-clapper-should-have-been-more-careful-in-congressional#ixzz34Nvk8PCx


Who was making a stink, initially? Rand Paul. Yep. The Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee. Ummm hmmm.

But yeah, nothing to see here, let's blame the guy who got sandbagged, who was asked a question that the questioner knew the answer to, and who asked that question even after the committee chairwoman WARNED the committee members against asking classified questions in open session.

See? Clapper was a completely unsympathetic guy, made very sympathetic with Wyman's boneheaded posturing. He did it on his own, too, without permission from his bosses on that committee--in fact, going against the express instructions of the chairwoman.

Dumb move.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
25. still making things up, I see
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 01:47 AM
Jun 2014

It's sure a good thing for Ron Wyden that his constituents love and respect him and wish him well and trust him, considering that there's ONE PERSON, an outlier, who wants to bash him for his continued and principled opposition to the surveillance state.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
28. Now you are starting to be rude, hurtful and disruptive and I don't like it.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:25 AM
Jun 2014

I haven't made a single thing up.

I've provided citations for my assertions, and all you have done in this thread is NAME CALL and make shitty litttle insinuations about me.

You're giving everyone a really good view, you know--but it's revealing a character that doesn't acquit you well at all.

Having a "continued and principled opposition" is not realized by ignoring the instructions of a committee chair, it is not realized by asking a classified question in open session after being TOLD to not do that, it is not realized by playing "Gotcha" with a guy who didn't MAKE the rules, but was simply a public servant implementing them, and who would have answered every question that the guy had in CLOSED session without any argument or issue.

Wyden was playing to the cheap seats--he was acting like a Republican, playing Gotcha, being snide and accusatory, and putting the witness in an untenable position. He fucked up.

Since he already knew the answer to the question he asked, why didn't he correct the witness, hmmmm? Why did he just let it go? Why didn't he say, "That's not correct, the correct response is..."

Because he was hoping to trip the guy up, and nothing more--Clapper didn't play ball, and no one found out about the disconnect until months later.

That was a Major Fail.

snot

(10,481 posts)
29. Uh, so we shouldn't ask any questions that might put wrongdoers in the awkward position of
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 04:18 AM
Jun 2014

having to lie in order to cover up their wrongdoing?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
30. What does that sentence even mean? Who's "we?" I didn't see you at that hearing.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 05:42 AM
Jun 2014

Who elected you? And if you were an elected official, knowing the answer to the question you were asking, you could have PROVIDED the information to the American public from the floor of the Senate yourself--with no risk of being jailed or charged for so doing.

Wyden already KNEW the answer to the question he was asking.

Wyden KNEW that the response, if accurate, would unlawfully reveal classified information.

Wyden knew he was putting Clapper into a position where he could either

1. Lie
2. Unlawfully reveal classified material
3. Be in contempt of Congress.


Wyden was TOLD at the start of the hearing by the Committee Chair to NOT ASK QUESTIONS with classified answers in open session. Wyden DID IT ANYWAY.

There were two sessions scheduled that day--Wyden asked a question he should have asked in CLOSED session in OPEN session.

What he did was wrong. If he really wanted us to know, HE could have told us all by himself--his speech on the floor of the Senate is PROTECTED; he would not be prosecuted for revealing classified material, even though Clapper would have been.
 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
38. WOW !!! - Wyden Is The Jerk, Because Good Guy Clapper Was Forced To Lie ???
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 01:51 PM
Jun 2014

I tought I'd seen it all...







Thanks for giggles... sorry you're so scared.

struggle4progress

(118,041 posts)
11. You have misunderstood the Congressional immunity
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 05:39 AM
Jun 2014

Only politics prevents Senators and Representatives from discussing matters, classified by the Executive, on the floor: from a legal perspective, they are quite free to discuss such matters on the floor

But the Executive and the Legislative are separate branches of government

Thus the Executive makes some information only conditionally available to the Legislative branch and subject to certain negotiated conditions: if the Legislative branch, or certain members of it, fail to honor these conditions, the Executive might respond by withholding future information. The Legislative, in such a situation, is not completely without recourse, as it certainly has the power in retaliation to withhold certain funding from the Executive, and in cases of apparent gross criminality might further persuade the Judicial to issue subpoenas against the Executive, but in most cases the Judicial will be extraordinarily reluctant to intervene in political disputes between the other branches

MADem

(135,425 posts)
18. I can't do better than S4P's response at 11. They ARE allowed to talk freely, as are Reps, so long
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 02:42 PM
Jun 2014

as they are on the floor of their respective chamber.

The idea behind closed hearings is so that they don't fuck over the cabinet. Not too cool to be talking about things that are going to mess up a national security element prosecuted by Defense, or a diplomatic move underway at State.

Ron Wyden COULD have said whatever he'd liked, without fear of legal reprisal. Instead, he tried to game Clapper--who was appearing without any immunities, protections or anything of that nature--into screwing himself. Clapper, in a lame effort to protect classified material, chose LYING over revealing secrets. But he wasn't given any opportunity to speak truthfully in closed session, and Wyden could have asked that they move to that--but he didn't.

Like I said--not his finest hour. Nothing to do with his "heart." He was grandstanding; trying to fuck over Clapper for points. Now, I'm not saying that Clapper is Saint Ignacius of the Classified Material Control, but Wyden sure did make him look like he was getting pushed around.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
26. you obviously don't know Ron Wyden.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 01:50 AM
Jun 2014

What you say he did is simply not what he would do. It is not in his character.

And so I have to wonder why you are so driven to trash him and assign motives to his actions.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
27. He disregarded the instructions of the committee chair and he asked a
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:18 AM
Jun 2014

question that he KNEW had a classified response, after being told to NOT do that.

So, I'd say that by his words I shall know him.

He's either easily discombobulated, stupid, deliberately obtuse, was trying to make a point and fuck Diane Feinstein anyway, or he "just fucked up this one time."

Why do you persist in making this about ME? WHY? You need to stop doing that. This is NOT about me. You need to just quit with the spurious accusations about ME when all I am doing is giving you FACTS and you're not liking them, so you are responding with personal insinuations. Cut it out.

Unless Wyden didn't do these things--but he DID do them, he DID ask a classified question in open session , he did it AFTER DiFi said Don't Do That, and he DID know better and he DID already know the answer to the question he was asking--you need to put the focus where it belongs.

Politicians on both sides of the divide DO grandstand, you know. They DO take political advantage. They sometimes do dumb things, like ignore their committee chair and act like jerks to people giving testimony. That's not rocket science. It's just something we see out of the GOP more often than the liberal end of the equation--because liberals generally are not so unfair.

This was grandstanding of the highest order--not his finest hour.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
33. Laughable.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 12:51 PM
Jun 2014

It's just not Ron Wyden. As hard as you want to protect the surveillance state (odd for a Democrat to want to do that) you truly have no way of divining what was in the Senator's mind.is

He is a fine man, honest and trustworthy. The farthest thing from a grandstander.

It just wouldn't happen the way you make it up to be.

And why a Democrat want's to protect the surveillance state and assign ill motives to a Democratic senator who is trying to oversee that surveillance industry tells me more about that self-identified Democrat than it does about him. I already know him.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
34. I've had enough of your snarky, personal comments and childish invective.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 01:01 PM
Jun 2014

Go talk to yourself--you are incapable of civil debate, and you're just running round this board goading and baiting me at every turn.

It says way more about you than you realize.

I've provided you links, instead of coughing up some "proof" to make your case, you snark about ME, make snide remarks about MY character, and follow me around with rude comments.

So take your comments and stuff them. This has nothing to do with "protecting the surveillance state" it has everything to do with grandstanding and making shitty decisions when the committee chair said "Don't ask questions with classified answers" and the guy did it anyway.

That's fact--take that and do what you want with it. I don't care what you think. By your repeated poor--and yeah, LAUGHABLE-- behavior you've caused me to feel this way.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
37. I AM going to defend Senator Wyden and Ed Snowden...
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 01:50 PM
Jun 2014

....from scurrilous attacks wherever I like and whenever I like and respond to whomever I feel necessary. I understand your discomfort. But I will not be silenced.

It is not a personal attack to ask a DU member why he/she defends particular issues. Or why he/she disparages a Democratic senator. It is not a personal attack to question the motives of someone who attacks a whistleblower who defends the Constitution..

(Speaking of snark, wasn't it you who posted an image in a recent post to me, in an effort to personally taunt me?)

MADem

(135,425 posts)
39. You aren't doing that. You're engaging in personal insult and making yourself look
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 01:52 PM
Jun 2014

well...just like you are.

No rebuttal? You get personal--it's all you got.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Here's Why Snowden Plea N...