Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

Facebook: Digby Parton

@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)

thedigbyblog at gmail
satniteflix at gmail
publius.gaius at gmail
tpostsully at gmail
Spockosbrain at gmail
Richardein at me.com


Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic

Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Saturday, April 08, 2017

Unmasking the scandal

by digby

If you read only one thing about the Susan Rice "unmasking" story, read this by Marcy Wheeler. It is possible to be worried about "unmasking" and have deep concerns about government surveillance techniques without throwing in with the self-serving Trump and his minions GOP who have never spent more than a second caring about these things and will revert back to the their natural authoritarian state the second it no longer serves their partisan interests. (And yes, Democrats do this too -- but it's the Republicans who make a serious profit at it. You can count on one hand the number of them who call themselves libertarians and who care at all about civil liberties. They care  about money, which they think is the same thing.)

Anyway, here's an excerpt from Emptywheel:

The administration and its allies are using legitimate concerns about America’s spying to distract from the Russia controversy.

One name.

Even according to a fevered editorialfrom the Wall Street Journal, the entire alleged scandal involving former National Security Adviser Susan Rice boils down to her request to unmask “at least one” name of a Trump transition official that appeared in finished intelligence reports.

Based on that one name, President Donald Trump on Wednesday claimed in an interview with the New York Times that Rice may have broken the law. “I think the Susan Rice thing is a massive story,” Trump insisted. “I think it’s a massive, massive story. All over the world.”

But the very next day, the GOP’s real motivations intruded on Trump’s claims. Devin Nunes, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, stepped down from his role overseeing the committee’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, pending an Ethics Committee investigation into complaints that he leaked classified information to kick off the trumped-up scandal surrounding Rice.

Nunes stepping aside was just the latest evidence that the Trump administration’s very vocal concerns about surveillance gone wild have been less than sincere. The alarm bells are, in fact, an attempt to channel legitimate concerns about the extent of America’s spying to undermine the investigation into Trumpland’s improper ties to Russia and potentially other countries.

The Rice pseudo-scandal goes back to a press conference Nunes held on March 22, in which he claimed that multiple people involved in the Trump transition had been “incidentally” collected by government surveillance and subsequently “unmasked.” That’s a bunch of jargon. What it means is that conversations obtained of legitimate foreign targets—a point Nunes has conceded—either included references to Trump associates or featured Trump associates themselves. Nunes’s press conference came just as Trump was receiving blowback for his debunked claim that former President Barack Obama had “wiretapped” him, and it was immediately suspected that Nunes was providing cover for Trump by claiming that Trump’s team, at least, was caught up in surveillance.

That’s entirely to be expected. After all, as officials from countries around the world discussed changes in U.S. policy the incoming administration might make, they would refer to “Donald Trump” and other officials expected to join his administration by name. Additionally, multiple Trump associates, including his short-lived National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and even Trump’s son Donald Jr., engaged in conversations with foreign officials about policy. Some of these conversations—such as with the head of a sanctioned Russian bank who had been trained by the FSB, the successor to the KGB—were really sketchy. It is not surprising that their names were collected in intercepts targeting the officials in question.It’s as if the entire right wing decided to stage a Benghazi reunion to distract from the Russian allegations clouding Trump’s administration.

The names of all these figures would have been hidden—“masked”—in any finished intelligence reports. But if someone reading the reports as part of her job felt she needed to learn the identity of the person in question to fully understand it, she would ask the agency that collected the information to share the name. The agency would ultimately decide whether the request derived from a legitimate foreign intelligence need or not. As David Kris, former head of the National Security Division at the Justice Department, has explained, in some cases intercepts count as foreign intelligence information because of the American involved, as was probably true of Flynn’s discussions of U.S. sanctions against Russia with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S.

The allegation against Rice, then, is that she did just that: She asked for the identity of “at least one” Trump official. Right-wing journalist Chuck Johnson, who allegedly had his own behind-the-scenes role in the transition, has claimed that the names of Blackwater founder Erik Prince and Fox News host Sean Hannity, neither of whom had a formal role in the transition, were also unmasked. Prince allegedly did serve as a go-between with his former Emirates clients and Trump, and has provided mercenary forces to multiple foreign governments. And Hannity conducted an interview with long-time U.S. intelligence target Julian Assange at a time when the intelligence community was (and still is) trying to figure out whether Assange was collaborating directly with Russia or any Trump officials.

Still, that’s just three people. Yet in his public commentson the issue, Devin Nunes has claimed that the collection involves “dozens” of Trump officials.

Nunes apparently got to that number by counting something else: the number of reports sent to the Obama White House in which Nunes could figure out the identity of the American mentioned in a report. That, too, is unsurprising. As documents leaked by Edward Snowden reportedly reveal, the masking used by NSA reports can be absurdly easy to decipher, with references to “minimized U.S. president-elect” and “minimized U.S. president” occurring thousands of times. The way the NSA replaces an American’s name in a report is in no way related to Susan Rice. If Nunes has a complaint about that, he should have taken it up with the agency it remains his job to oversee—a point madeby Nunes’s counterpart on the Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff.

Instead, Nunes got dealt these documents directly by several figures at the White House so he could have his wacky presser. He publicized the contents of finished intelligence reports, only to run back to the White House to ostentatiously brief the president on something his own aides had first discovered. It was a stunt, not real oversight. (Nunes’s public comments about these reports, which he admitted were “all classified information,” forms the basis of the ethics complaints against him.)

At this point, a series of right-wing propagandists, starting with PizzaGate conspiracist Mike Cernovich, delivered Rice’s name as a target. Given Rice’s outsize role in the conservative outrage over the Benghazi scandal, it’s as if the entire right wing decided to stage a Benghazi reunion to distract from the Russian allegations clouding Trump’s administration.

She goes on to explain in plain English what Rice was doing and why it was well within her purview. She also explains why the leaking is not Rice and how they are twisting the issue for sheer partisan gain. If you want to understand how this psuedo-scandal is unfolding go read it all. It's not long. And it's very clear.

But she also clearly explains why this "masking" issue is of concern nonetheless, even if this is case of dangerous partisan opportunism to protect an incompetent president.

Far more troubling is when agencies go back into already collected raw data and look for the communications of Americans by name. While the NSA and CIA are partly limited from doing this, the FBI routinely searches databases for Americans’ conversations, even before opening up a formal investigation. They do so even for cases that have no tie to national security. To understand the risk of this, imagine what would have happened—again, this is routine—if the FBI started investigating Michael Flynn for his failure to register as a foreign agent for Russia and Turkey. They would search their databases and be able to read every intercepted conversation that the FBI had obtained, certainly including his conversations with Kislyak, but also those conversations related to a meeting with Turkish officials about kidnapping a U.S. resident at the behest of Turkey. This “back door search” provides a way for the FBI to obtain damning information on Americans without any probable cause.

And that access is something that Nunes has repeatedly defended. “To keep Americans safe,” Nunes wrote last June, “our Intelligence Community needs to fully employ every tool available to it.” In calling for a straight reauthorization of the law under which the FISA Court has permitted such back door searches, the Trump administration has already backed the practice.

That’s what this pseudo-scandal is all about. Nunes has always been fine if the breathtaking powers of the American surveillance apparatus are directed at Muslims or people he doesn’t know. But when the same tools get used against his buddies, even in the context of an investigation into Russian spying, the Republican propaganda machine squeals as if they haven’t supported such spying all along.

There are reasons to be concerned about the intelligence community’s access to Americans’ data. But the national security adviser unmasking a single official’s name in reports she is expected to read is nowhere near the most urgent of those reasons. And if it’s a crime, it’s a crime that Nunes has long happily endorsed.

I too find the FBI rifling through these reports seeking evidence against a citizen without probable cause to be a serious problem. But the chances of that being curtailed due to this investigation with Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell at the helm is nil. I think we know that appealing to hypocrisy or principles with this crowd will not result in changes. They don't know or care about those things. And let's face it, there's very little evidence that the FBI is hostile to Donald Trump. If Trump gets his war with Mexicans, Muslims, African Americans, women and the rest of the world on, as he seems quite capable of doing, they'll go along. That's the agenda they signed on for.