Senate Intel Committee Blocks Former Staffer From Talking To Press About Oversight Process

[Catherina]

Senate Intel Committee Blocks Former Staffer From Talking To Press About Oversight Process

Brian Beutler June 18, 2013, 12:00 AM

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has taken the unusual step of actively blocking a former committee aide from talking to TPM about congressional oversight of the intelligence community. At issue isn’t classified sources and methods of intelligence gathering but general information about how the committee functions — and how it should function. The committee’s refusal to allow former general counsel Vicki Divoll to disclose unclassified information to a reporter was the first and only time it has sought to block her from making public comments, based on her experience as one of its most senior aides, since she left Capitol Hill in 2003.

The committee’s decision comes amid fallout from leaks of classified National Security Agency documents by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden. In light of the Snowden revelations about the country’s secret surveillance programs, TPM was reporting a story based on interviews with members of Congress and current and former aides about the successes and pitfalls of intelligence oversight on Capitol Hill. The goal was to answer some basic questions for readers: How does a classified process differ from public oversight? What challenges do the combination of government secrecy, classified briefings, and strict committee protocols present to legislators trying to control the nation’s sprawling intelligence apparatus?

Divoll served as a senior aide on the committee from 2000-2003, including two years as its general counsel. Before that, from 1995-2000 she was assistant general counsel for the Central Intelligence Agency, where she also served as deputy legal adviser to the agency’s Counterterrorism Center. After leaving the Senate, Divoll was a fellow at the Harvard Institute of Politics and an adjunct professor at the Naval Academy. She has been regularly cited by reporters in news stories, penned op-eds on counterterrorism and civil liberties, and appeared on television.

...

While Divoll remains legally barred from disclosing classified information, she is also still subject to a non-disclosure agreement with the Senate Intelligence Committee that bars her from discussing committee-sensitive business. Out of an abundance of caution, Divoll also conferred with the committee on Friday about her interview with TPM. She anticipated that the committee would approve the interview, noting that in her post-government career, both the committee and the CIA had never done more than request minor tweaks when she brought them pieces of her writing for pre-publication review.

...

But for the first time in her career, the committee took the extraordinary step, on a bipartisan basis, of declaring the interview’s entire contents a violation of her non-disclosure agreement and effectively forbade her from putting any of it on the record.

...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/senate-committee-silences-former-aide-who-attempted-to-criticize-congressional-intelligence-oversigh.php

[hr]
Taken from yestoday's thread "Edward Snowden ONLINE NOW" Transcript/Raw data of what he really said & how he said it


Question:
User avatar for AhBrightWings
AhBrightWings
17 June 2013 2:12pm

My question: given the enormity of what you are facing now in terms of repercussions, can you describe the exact moment when you knew you absolutely were going to do this, no matter the fallout, and what it now feels like to be living in a post-revelation world? Or was it a series of moments that culminated in action? I think it might help other people contemplating becoming whistleblowers if they knew what the ah-ha moment was like. Again, thanks for your courage and heroism.

Answer:

I imagine everyone's experience is different, but for me, there was no single moment. It was seeing a continuing litany of lies from senior officials to Congress - and therefore the American people - and the realization that that Congress, specifically the **Gang of Eight**, wholly supported the lies that compelled me to act. Seeing someone in the position of James Clapper - the Director of National Intelligence - baldly lying to the public without repercussion is the evidence of a subverted democracy. The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.

[hr]

**The current Gang of Eight**

Background

The President of the United States is required by 50 U.S.C. § 413(a)(1) to "ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States." However, under 50 U.S.C. § 413b(c)(2), the President may elect to report instead to the Gang of Eight when he thinks "it is essential to limit access" to information about a covert action.[not verified in body]
...
The individuals are sworn to secrecy and there is no vote process

The term "Gang of Eight" gained wide currency in the coverage of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program, in the context that no members of Congress other than the Gang of Eight were informed of the program, and they were forbidden to disseminate knowledge of the program to other members of Congress. The Bush administration has asserted that the briefings delivered to the Gang of Eight sufficed to provide Congressional oversight of the program and preserve the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.[1]

Members of the Gang of Eight (intelligence)

United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

Mike Rogers (R): (Chair)
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D): (Ranking member)

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

Dianne Feinstein (D): (Chair)
Saxby Chambliss (R): (Ranking member)

Leadership in theUnited States House of Representatives:

John Boehner (R): (Speaker of the House)
Nancy Pelosi (D): (Minority leader)

Leadership in the United States Senate:

Harry Reid (D): (Majority leader)
Mitch McConnell (R): (Minority leader)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_%28intelligence%29

[atreides1]

1. There's more of that transparency.

[Catherina]

2. Feinstein, a war profiteer, and her cohorts obstructing. This is simply unbelievable n/t

[Major Hogwash]

3. Why do you think they call it "intel"?

So, it can be broadcast on tv?

[disidoro01]

4. They could

Classify the congressional cafeteria menu and you would defend that as state secrets.

[LondonReign2]

20. It's not inteligence gathering

But you probably already knew that.

It's about the oversight process, which as the article clearly states is not classified information.

That said, she did sign a non-disclosure agreement, so the Committee is seemingly within their rights to block this. Whether they should actually do so, or whether they should be transparent, is another discussion.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like her information would embarrass our fine Congresspeople and show that they aren't doing their jobs., or doing them quite badly.

[giftedgirl77]

5. Key words Non-Disclosure Agreement

there are reasons people are required to sign them especially when working in the Intel field.The last thing we need is people running around half cocked shooting their mouth off even more about the inner workings of our Intel Agencies.

People need to grow up & stop looking at everything as a potential scandal.

[dkf]

6. Other people should read the piece and realize that she has gotten approvals in the past.

She ran completely non intelligence related info by the committee and they refused to let this go on the record...to protect their incompetent oversight no doubt.

They make it look worse and sinister when they do this.

Stop making excuses for them.

[Major Hogwash]

7. She was told "no" this time. Tough shit.

Stop making excuses for the Republicans.

[dkf]

8. They are covering up for George W. Bush if anything.

Did you read the piece?

[Major Hogwash]

9. Sure, sure.

You can waste your time convincing yourself of that, but it isn't going anywhere now.

[giftedgirl77]

10. I'm not making excuses for anyone

& I read the entire article. Nice of you to have a crystal ball & to know exactly why they denied the request. The bottom line is when one signs an NDA they lose the authority to decide what they can or can't talk about. Not to mention that considering she is an attorney could put her "talking points" into the category of attorney client privilege.

This whole the entire gov is evil & up to no good is just naive. It's hilarious that a staffer not being allowed to give an interview is now considered an issue or some form of a cover up.

[Octafish]

11. Sausage-Making Process is pretty much what Upton Sinclair reported.

Preventing Ms. Divoll from discussing the workings protects these important officials from their real enemy, We the People.

PS: Mike Rogers (R-Amway) is a real profile in brown nosing Erik Prince and Dick DeVos. Money trumps peace, Baby!

[Catherina]

12. And from just divulging unclassified information lol!

When the shit hits the fan, it's going to hit it ugly now. When they're trying to stop unclassified information about how they work from being put on record, by someone on their own side, that's an indication of fear, an indication that they don't want their own words, their own lies to be scrutinized by the public they work for.

And I am certain, judging by the number of responses that my ignore list mercifully filtered out, that there are people saying this is fine and that we, the public, don't even have the right to know unclassified information about how they collaborated in shredding our constitutional rights.

Money trumps peace indeed. Just look who's on that committee. Loyalists who refused to impeach George Bush and impeded investigations of their crimes.

[Major Hogwash]

13. That's circular logic that you're using.

How do you know "they collaborated in shredding our constitutional rights" if no one has testified to it?

That's reaching a conclusion without having any input.

[Octafish]

14. That's why secret government is un-American.

Democracy requires an informed electorate. That's why the promise of "Transparency" resonated with so many Americans.

When only a few representatives have a need-to-know essential information, We the People don't need all the facts to know that's a problem.

What's needed is an investigation, open to the public. That will go a long way to restoring what's missing: Accountability.

[kentuck]

15. Unbelievable!

The Senate Intelligence Committee needs to be changed, as well as the Attorney General, and the head of the NSA, and the incompetent Congress needs to be changed. The ball is in Obama's court. It is up to him to fix this mess.

[Catherina]

17. Thanks Kentuck. Agreed. The ball really is in Obama's court. Little things like this are worrisome

Giving the appearance that everyone's scrambling to coordinate things isn't the wisest tactic right now. I don't think the next elections are going to be very pretty. .

[Uncle Joe]

16. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Catherina.

[Catherina]

18. You're welcome Uncle Joe

[hobbit709]

19. "Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey"