White House Knew Of CIA Snooping on Senate, Report Says
Source: HuffPo
WASHINGTON -- Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan consulted the White House before directing agency personnel to sift through a walled-off computer drive being used by the Senate Intelligence Committee to construct its investigation of the agencys torture program, according to a recently released report by the CIAs Office of the Inspector General.
The Inspector Generals report, which was completed in July but only released by the agency on Wednesday, reveals that Brennan spoke with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough before ordering CIA employees to use whatever means necessary to determine how certain sensitive internal documents had wound up in Senate investigators hands.
Brennans consultation with McDonough also came before the CIA revealed the search to then-Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), whose staff was the target of the snooping.
SNIP
The following day, the lawyer wrote that Brennan informed him that he had discussed the possible security breach with ... McDonough. The director reiterated his previous orders that the lawyer should do whatever was needed to find out how staffers had accessed the documents. Although Brennan apparently told the lawyer he wanted to inform Feinstein and the Senate Intelligence Committee of the computer search as soon as possible, the CIA chief said that conversation couldn't happen until the agency was sure of how committee staffers had accessed the document.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/15/cia-senate-spying_n_6478960.html
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)for the Obama Presidency? There was almost no response on the GD thread about this. I only hope McDonough or Brennan didn't tell the President that the CIA was planning to spy on the Senate--because that would seem to be a grave executive branch overreach of power, to use the CIA against the legislative branch (BECAUSE it was exercising its proper oversight of the CIA's activities, no less).
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Big-fucking-time.
the question "why" keeps coming to mind.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)First, I can't understand why so much energy was spent by Brennan/CIA to hide, and then retrieve, the Panetta review from Congress--just what the fuck is IN there? And I can't understand why Brennan would go to McDonough and say, "Hey, is it OK that I send some guys to hack into Senate computers and email and figure out how they got a hold of it?" Why would McDonough say, "SURE!! Go ahead!" Why would the WH, who supposedly supported the Intel Panel torture report release, help Brennan in his quest to HIDE the Panetta review? Who ordered the Panetta review, was it actually Panetta? Why did Panetta himself hide it and do nothing with it at all? All very fucked up.
H2O Man
(73,605 posts)it represents a gross violation of the constitutionally-intended separation of powers, and as such, an ultimate low point in the concept of an imperial presidency. That should trouble all Americans.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Although I've read that he and Brennan are pretty close. Very disturbing if this is true, and what a horrible precedent to set for the future if nothing is said or done about it.
alfredo
(60,075 posts)Spooks. When I was copying morse code for the ASA, even the president couldn't look over my shoulder to see what I was doing. He didn't have the need to know. Just because Brenan and Obama were close, doesn't mean Brenan told him everything.
If Obama knew and approved, shame on him.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)I can't see him wanting this to happen the way it's been reported, but unless he fires Brennan and possibly McDonough, then it's the same as condoning their actions. And no, I don't give a rat's ass what the "CIA investigative panel" consisting of Evan Bayh and some lawyer from the White House come up with in terms of absolving the CIA. That's a total farce.
alfredo
(60,075 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)But did Obama know about it or not, or was this decided on by his staff?...it could be treachery too on Brennan's part.
But in any case it looks bad for his administration.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)He'll bring the administration down if they try to shitcan him, I'll bet.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Hover stayed in power till he died because of that.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)...if the President admits CIA snooping was wrong.
Brennan should have already been dismissed.
Now we know why that has not happened.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)(a couple weeks ago) to look for opportunities "in the private sector". Supposedly has nothing to do with this matter. Supposedly.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)information regarding the entire ordeal.
First, Brennan disputes that he said "whatever means necessary", which I tend to believe only because people in his position don't give open-ended orders like that. It's ridiculous. Someone could interpret that to mean kill everyone who stands in your way. But even if he did say something to that effect,most people don't consider that as carte blanche to do something potentially illegal.
From the report:
Plus, Brennan was trying to get what he needed (proof that the CIA info had been stolen/removed from their offices) so he could brief Congress and others. Again, from the report:
A misunderstanding ... arose because [Brennan] did not appreciate what forensic techniques were necessary to answer his questions, the Accountability Review Board wrote in its report.
Brennan was very interested in briefing the Senate committee, but had been advised by legal counsel that he could not brief them or the White House until he was certain Senate investigators had the documents in their posessions:
Brennan hasn't been fired because he hasn't done anything fire-worthy. He was investigating the theft/leak of classified material. Material that was in the process of being declassified, so it's not like the Senate committee wouldn't have seen it in the future. In doing so he asked the investigators on his side to find out if they had it, not understanding what they would have to do computer-wise to answer his questions.
Whether separation of powers was violated is unknown. It is clear there was no intention to do so as Brennan and others sought legal counsel through their entire investigation. Let's not forget that Feinstein's staffers had in their possession material they weren't cleared for. It was also unknown how they got it Did they steal it? Was the CIA supposed to not follow up? They wouldn't have handled the investigation once they knew for certain someone on the Senate committees staff had the documents. Then it would have been turned over to the IG.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Senate computers and reading their emails. He said, to paraphrase, "that is beyond the realm of anything we'd do" in his denials last winter. And then it became public that that was EXACTLY what happened, and he had to personally apologize to Feinstein. He really has no credibility, none. Step back further and look at this another way: what right does the CIA have to conduct their own spying operation against members of the legislative branch--because Brennan is "suspicious" about how they obtained the Panetta review? The CIA is allowed to decide on, and conduct, such operations unilaterally upon its own suspicions or whims? Not, you know, some other appropriate investigative party such as the FBI? Even worse, the White House ALLOWED the CIA to use itself as an investigating body against the Senate? I sure hope not.
aggiesal
(8,923 posts)Princess DiFi said it was OK to spy on Americans.
They must have taken her at her word.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)
If true.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)no one was punished. It would have led back to the White House.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)basically coming up with a "tsk tsk, shouldn't have done that" report that does not recommend any punishment and manages to exonerate Brennan. Amazing, that. Now Brennan and anyone involved under him officially have something to point to that clears them of anything worse than some questionable judgment in this matter.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The torture side.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Something about Glenn Greenwald.
Something about Snowden.
Something about Republicans being worse.
Something about trusting Obama to snoop but no one else.
Something about Nader.
Something about snooping being ok because it keeps us safe.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)IDemo
(16,926 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)This needs to be investigated.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)should read the article. The Senate's hands aren't clean on this either. It will be interesting if it ever comes out how DiFi's staff got their hands on the report.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)what you cared about too.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)In fact, wasn't there talk somewhere on the 'net street corner that she sounded "hysterical" after the speech? It was amazing that she went on the Senate Floor to make sure all the facts got into the Congressional Record. It's there for prosperity to read.
If you read my above post, it has the link to her Speech (which really isn't the correct word, but all I can think up at the moment.)
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)thing or not. (not with the speech, with taking the docs in the first place). I would have liked to have a national conversation about it. Is it illegal for her to do it? What about the fact that her committee is oversight for the CIA? If she had a pressing national interest is it okay?
I know how committed DiFi was to releasing this report and making sure the info came out. I greatly respect that, but I can't say her hands are clean.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)and Committee were Given the documents by the CIA itself.
The CIA realizes that someone within the CIA itself released documents that they "shouldn't" have, or at least too early, and are now blaming the Senate Staffers of "hacking" as if anyone other than a CIA staffer can just walk in and hack the CIA in a CIA facility...really? Even me, low tech that I am, understands that this would be almost impossible without inside help. Even DiFi states that a whistle blower must have released the documents - no one knows.
Further - HOW can the Senate STEAL documents, period?
tiptonic
(765 posts)Makes me wonder who really controls the country. The CIA or the (supposed) elected government.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)....the plan to investigate the Senate's actions.
This guy makes me extremely nervous. His hands have been all over the whole thing.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)*I am taking this to mean at the onset, no one in the CIA would be allowed to access this drive.
*Someone at the CIA released the Panetta Report in error and then turns around and blames the Senate staff who are having to trove through millions of pages of a document dump.
After a series of meetings, I learned that on two occasions, CIA personnel electronically removed committee access to CIA documents after providing them to the committee. This included roughly 870 documents or pages of documents that were removed in February 2010, and secondly roughly another 50 were removed in mid-May 2010.
At some point in 2010, committee staff searching the documents that had been made available found draft versions of what is now called the Internal Panetta Review.
We believe these documents were written by CIA personnel to summarize and analyze the materials that had been provided to the committee for its review. The Panetta review documents were no more highly classified than other information we had received for our investigationin fact, the documents appeared to be based on the same information already provided to the committee.
What was unique and interesting about the internal documents was not their classification level, but rather their analysis and acknowledgement of significant CIA wrongdoing.
To be clear, the committee staff did not hack into CIA computers to obtain these documents as has been suggested in the press. The documents were identified using the search tool provided by the CIA to search the documents provided to the committee.
We have no way to determine who made the Internal Panetta Review documents available to the committee. Further, we dont know whether the documents were provided intentionally by the CIA, unintentionally by the CIA, or intentionally by a whistle-blower.
*So, CIA is doing what the CIA does best - stir up trouble within governments - now it is our turn.
This has major snippage within the body of the text, go read her speech. Enlightening as hell, and though I do not agree with her a lot of the time, I totally believe her on this issue. I find it funny that people have forgotten about this and are taking the CIA's side on this issue.
Hip Hip Hooray! I now know how to quote! Yea! Thank you!
tblue37
(65,487 posts)in the set of HTML tags beneath the subject box. That will enclose your highlighted text in a lttle gray quotation box.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)tblue37
(65,487 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)McDonough and Brennan should be fired at the very least.
This is a serious violation of the separation of powers and likely against the law.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)all that the CIA is running this "PR" campaign against the Senate. As someone stated above - who is in charge, PBO or the CIA? I think we all have our suspicions...
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Response to okaawhatever (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
elias49
(4,259 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)are pretty much screwed. We are SO late to the party!
Propaganda on network and cable TV
Soft censorship of the press and airwaves.
Wrecking the lives of whistleblowers until the laws can be fine-tuned to more easily convict and incarcerate them
Even the enemy's enemy is lying to us.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)worse or more sordid, it does.
The CIA isn't out of control, the CIA is in control... of the government, it seems.