Or John Brennan for that matter. There are people who make a career of staying inside the system. That choice forces them to decide what they are going to accept and what they are going to resist. Often, they accept far more, justifying their accepting of the lies they are told and they are forced to tell by saying it is for the “greater good.” The trouble with that theory is the greater good is defined by people with teir own questionable agendas.
Government employees like John Brennan have long ago agreed to sell out their ethical souls in exchange for influence, power and an opportunity to gain wealth. We have examples of this throughout our history and the history of other nations. There will always be those guys and gals who simply choose being part of the system over telling the truth.
Newt Gingrich was interviewed the other day and said Clapper was a friend of his. When asked about Clapper’s obvious lies in the past, Newt uncomfortably attempted to avoid the subject my mumbling that people make bad choices. Here’s the problem. If he made the choice to lie to the American people in front of Congress, he’s freaking out of here. Either don’t answer- and take the lick for that- or answer honestly. Lying ruins your credibility, even if it gains you favor with your masters.
Here’s the key transcript:
Wyden: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?
Clapper: No sir.
Wyden: It does not?
Clapper: Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly. This was a lie. Many people believed it was a lie at the time, but that was confirmed thanks to the documents leaked by Ed Snowden, who later claimed that seeing that bit of testimony helped convince him that he needed to go through with his plan to leak this information.
James Clapper, of course, is the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of the various intelligence agencies basically report in to him. He’s still in that job, which many people argue is a complete travesty. He flat out lied to Congress and got away with it.
What’s been really odd is that the story as to why Clapper lied seems to keep changing. When questioned about this, Clapper’s initial response was that he thought that Wyden was asking about collection of email information, which is clearly not the case if you just listen to the actual question. Wyden, pretty clearly, says “any type of data at all.” About a week later, Clapper changed his story, saying that he believed the question was an unfair “loaded question” (he compared it to the “when did you stop beating your wife” type of question — even though it’s not that at all) and then said that he gave “the least untruthful answer.”
This didn’t make much sense either — and it made even less sense when Senator Wyden revealed that he didn’t just spring this question on Clapper, but had sent it to Clapper’s office a day ahead so he could review the question and be aware of what he was to be asked. On top of that, Wyden revealed that after Clapper’s answer — which Wyden knew was false — Wyden staffers sent a letter to Clapper asking him if he wanted to amend his answer, and Clapper’s office refused to do so.
Finally, about a month later, Clapper finally admitted that he lied, now claiming that it was all a “mistake.”
“mistakes will happen, and when I make one, I correct it.” Except… he had been given the chance to correct it and he didn’t. It was only after it was publicly revealed (via Snowden and Glenn Greenwald) that Clapper was outright lying that he claimed he made “a mistake.” But, even then, it only came after pretending he misheard the question, then claiming that it was a loaded question (when it was not). And then, of course, months later, Clapper could pretend, with the benefit of hindsight, that he should have been more forthright about the program, but that’s difficult to believe. And none of it matters, because the DOJ refuses to investigate Clapper for lying.
I think the bigger question we should ask, rather than “When did you stop beating your wife” as Clapper laments, is “When are you going to stop lying to please your masters?”
Every government employee knows these guys. I know them. Anyone in government who is reading this post will nod their heads and say “Yep, I know one.” These guys who decide early to play the game and then compromise a lot. They will, without hesitation, also stab a good guy in the back, lie for their bosses, and stop people from doing their jobs if told to do so. When an ethical employee quits in protest, these guys stay on burying themselves deeper into to the bureaucracy like a tick. The higher up they go, the more likely they trade their ethics for access.
Now Clapper is in front of Congress yapping about how the intel community concluded the Russians undermined our election in order to help Trump. True? Maybe. Who cares? Only the liberals. Is this verified with fact and evidence and not opinion? Well, that’s the rub. They refuse to give up their sources, once again saying “trust us.”
The problem with that is the intel community under Brennan and Clapper has become uber political and maybe a shadow government unto itself. And both have been caught shading the truth more than once. In fact, fifty intel analysts risked or destroyed their careers by signing a letter of complaint that senior intel people (read Clapper and Brennan) were forcing them to change their reports to reflect an opinion more in line with Obama’s, which is we were beating ISIS (when they were actually gaining ground and influence). You can bet if fifty are willing to destroy themselves, thousands are quietly agreeing. (If this were Climate Change, the liberals would be saying “The science is settled because so many are in agreement!)
Worse, the Democrats are trying to set the narrative that Trump is illegitimate. He’s isn’t but that won’t stop the drumbeat. I hope in this case he fights and fights and fights. One way to fight back is to ask the very simple question EVERYBODY should be screaming about. How does the FBI know for a fact the Russians hacked the DNC server? The answer is they do not.
Never? Not once? The FBI has consistently asserted that the hack of the Democratic National Committee was an operation linked to the Russian government, even if they were less convinced that the Russians wanted to elect Donald Trump as a result. Last night, however, BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins reported that the DNC has told her that the FBI never requested access to their servers, nor has any other government agency. Instead, they relied on a report from a private vendor:
The FBI did not examine the servers of the Democratic National Committee before issuing a report attributing the sweeping cyberintrusion to Russia-backed hackers, BuzzFeed News has learned.
Six months after the FBI first said it was investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network, the bureau has still not requested access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said. No US government entity has run an independent forensic analysis on the system, one US intelligence official told BuzzFeed News.
“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News in an email.
So who did check out the hacked servers? The DNC brought in a well-respected outfit called Crowdstrike to check out their systems, and it was Crowdstrike that concluded that the DNC was the victim of a Russian-government hack. “Crowdstrike is pretty good,” Watkins’ intel-community source told her, adding that they had no reason to believe that Crowdstrike got it wrong.
As pretty good as Crowdstrike might be, cyberattacks are federal crimes. Add to that the espionage implications involved with a hostile government intrusion, and this story doesn’t add up at all. This kind of crime should have had the FBI seizing the evidence and creating a chain of evidence in order to build a case should the opportunity for prosecution arise. The CIA and/or the NSA should have conducted their own probe of the servers to check for potential means to track back the attacks. Those are fairly obvious first steps to take under any circumstances, let alone the highly public circumstances of these hacks both then and over the last several weeks.
Let me break this down in a simple to understand case. Let’s say the police respond to a murder. There is a victim dead on the floor. They are not allowed to examine the body or collect evidence. However, the owner of the home says to them “We hired a third party contractor to collect evidence, including fingerprints, which was matched to “X”. So go arrest them.” And the FBI did just that. They took the word of the DNC that the Russians did it, based on the report generated by a private firm.
Now let’s go back to the murder case and now imagine it in court. The first question would be to the arresting officer. “It says here that prints from the scene, on the bloody knife in fact, were lifted and matched to my client, is that correct?” “Yes.” “Can you tell me the name of your certified evidence tech in your department that did that?” “Uhh….welll.. you see… we let Acme evidence collection and plumbing do the work, so we don’t have any actual…evidence…. . ”
At which point the judge would call a halt to the case, the officer and the prosecutor (who is now suffering a micro stroke!) would be called into chambers and be given the riot act, just before the judge threw the case out, held the officer in contempt and screamed at the prosecutor until the poor kid pissed himself.
And yet, the FBI concludes, after not concluding and getting hammered by the MSM, that the intel agencies were right.
The trouble with this is the agencies released a public version of the report and in it there is no proof. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the Russians are doing stuff as we do stuff to other nations- as pointed out by a senator in the hearings. It’s business. To use this as evidence that Russia worked to get Trump elected is wrong and very political. In Israel, Obama’s State Department funded anti-Netanyahu efforts during their election. We PAID people to undermine him! All because Obama hated Netanyahu for standing up to Obama’s feckless and dangerous foreign policy efforts. This we do know for a fact, so the question now is, where is the sanctions on Obama?
So either it is all fair in love and war, or we quit doing what we complain others are doing to us and see what happens. I’m betting the whining complaining government of the US will in fact continue to do their best to hack, undermine, confuse our enemies in order to promote our agenda, and we should expect and counter-strike any attempts by our enemies to do the same to us. It’s the game. Quit whining and lying to your own people for a change.
The Washington Examiner asks some serious questions about the report, much of which appears to be rehashed open sourced material dating back several years. In essence, what the “spies” are telling us is Russia, under Putin, is working to undermine the last remaining superpower and through that advance its own agenda. Well DUH!!! The political aspect is the tying in of Trump, formed as an assumption and a personal opinion by the intel community.
Julia Ioffe, a writer for The Atlantic who watches Russia carefully, tweeted this about the intelligence community’s unclassified report on Russian hacking released Friday: “It’s hard to tell if the thinness of the #hacking report is because the proof is classified, or because the proof doesn’t exist.”*
“Thin” is right. The report is brief — the heart of it is just five broadly-spaced pages. It is all conclusions and no evidence. In the introduction, the IC — the collective voice of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA — explains that it cannot supply evidence to the public, because doing so “would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.”
The problem is, without evidence, it’s hard for the public to determine just what happened in the hacking affair. So here are six questions the IC might consider answering in the days ahead:
1) When did the Russian hacking campaign begin? The report says Vladimir Putin “ordered an influence campaign in 2016.” It also says Russia’s intelligence services gained access to the Democratic National Committee’s computer system in July 2015 as part of an effort targeting both Democrats and Republicans, as well as individual campaigns, think tanks, and lobbyists. The IC also notes that some of Russia’s “professional trolls…started to advocate for President-elect Trump as early as December 2015.” This could be a simple writing problem, or it could be something more significant. Is the report saying Putin ordered the 2016 campaign in 2015? Is it saying Russian activities in 2015 were routine operations to mess with U.S. institutions and then became part of the Putin-ordered campaign in 2016? Is it saying something else?
Good point, read the rest. The problem we have because of Wikileaks is we now know the MSM, federal agencies and the Obama admin/Dems are working together to LIE TO US!
Which naturally makes it hard to think this time, unlike Lucy with the football, they aren’t going to pull it away at the last minute.
To that I say- I’ll just not take the chance.