Greenwald: Does Obama Administration View Journalists as Snowden's "Accomplices"? It Seems So.

[KoKo]

Does Obama Administration View Journalists as Snowden's "Accomplices"? It Seems So.
by Glenn Greenwald

James Clapper testifies before the Senate intelligence committee hearing on current and projected national security threats. (Photograph: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, appeared today before the Senate Intelligence Committee, his first appearance since outright lying to that Committee last March about NSA bulk collection. In his prepared opening remarks, Clapper said this:



Who, in the view of the Obama administration, are Snowden's "accomplices" The FBI and other official investigators have been very clear with the media that there is no evidence whatsoever that Snowden had any help in copying and removing documents from the NSA.


THE COMMENTS ON THIS POST at "Common Dreams" are WELL WORTH THE READ!



http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/01/29-9



Published on Wednesday, January 29, 2014 copyright by UT Documents

[questionseverything]

1. more to the nsa story,hopefully glen picks up on this

Muhtorov’s challenge has its roots in the case rejected by the Supreme Court last year. In deciding to dismiss, the Supreme Court relied upon the assurance by the U.S. solicitor general that the government would notify criminal defendants when it had used evidence from the surveillance.

But the solicitor general at the time did not know that the Justice Department had a policy to conceal such evidence from defendants. He learned of it only after some criminal defendants sought clarification of remarks that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) made in late 2012 that the government had used evidence from warrantless monitoring in certain cases. The department reversed its policy last year.
/////////////////////////////////////////////

so the solicitor general presented false info to the supreme court????? because he did not know that justice department was (illegally) concealing evidence???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/terrorism-suspect-challenges-warrantless-surveillance/2014/01/29/fb9cc2ae-88f1-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

[KoKo]

3. Thanks for posting that from WaPo...

Want to read the whole piece in more detail ..but, this is interesting from the article:

In a related development in a different terrorism case, a federal judge in Chicago for the first time ordered that a defense lawyer be allowed to review classified evidence obtained under FISA. In the law’s 36-year history, no defense attorney has ever been permitted to view such material, with courts deferring to government arguments that to do so would harm national security.

But in an order issued Wednesday, Judge Sharon J. Coleman said, “This court believes that the probable value of disclosure and the risk of nondisclosure outweigh the potential danger” of allowing the attorney, with proper clearances, to see the material.

[questionseverything]

5. so many have defended the nsa

saying the program is legal (it is not ) but not enough attention is being paid to the nsa forwarding info to other le agencies,the fbi,irs,dea and those agencies doing parallel construction to hide the original source of the investigation

but I was floored that the solicitor general had given false info to the sc...that seems huge to me

either sg did really not know what justice department was doing or they lied in sc arguments...neither is acceptable

[sabrina 1]

6. Every one of those cases should be retried with full disclosure as to where the information came

from.

[questionseverything]

8. i am no lawyer

but wouldn't that be double jeopardy?

[villager]

2. Very Nixonian. Alas.

Kinda the opposite of what we thought we were voting for.

[SaltyBro]

4. Why is Clapper the liar still employed?

Holy fuck can this administration be enraging at times.

[sabrina 1]

7. Why was he there in the first place?? He's a REPUBLICAN. If the voters wanted Republicans in the WH

all they had to do was vote for them. This is something that needs to be addressed before the next time we are asked to 'voted Democratic'. What does it mean anymore when you voted Dem for the WH and end up with a whole host of Republicans in the Cabinet??

What a nerve Clapper has to even appear in public.

Or is it okay for everyone now to lie to Congress? Are these the new rules?