Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

okaawhatever

(9,453 posts)
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:25 PM Jan 2015

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 agency’s torture program, according to a recently released report by the CIA’s Office of the Inspector General.

The Inspector General’s 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.

Brennan’s 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

48 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
White House Knew Of CIA Snooping on Senate, Report Says (Original Post) okaawhatever Jan 2015 OP
Am I the only one who thinks this is deadly serious and troubling TwilightGardener Jan 2015 #1
If true, it sounds like big-time wrongdoing to me. arcane1 Jan 2015 #2
It makes me queasy to my stomach, to be honest. TwilightGardener Jan 2015 #5
If it is accurate, H2O Man Jan 2015 #10
Yes. I would hope Obama did not know this was all going on. TwilightGardener Jan 2015 #13
"Need to know" is well known among alfredo Jan 2015 #25
Well, they would want him to have plausible deniability, if nothing else. TwilightGardener Jan 2015 #26
Yeah, they have to go. alfredo Jan 2015 #28
Nope you are not alone on that, it is big trouble if true. zeemike Jan 2015 #6
I guess we just figured out why Brennan hasn't been fired yet. TwilightGardener Jan 2015 #8
Well I won't take that bet. zeemike Jan 2015 #11
Director Brennan and Chief of Staff McDonough would have to go KeepItReal Jan 2015 #12
Interestingly, though, the CIA Inspector General has very recently resigned TwilightGardener Jan 2015 #16
You should have read the article. It explains quite clearly Brennan's position and has relevant okaawhatever Jan 2015 #18
Brennan is a known liar. He openly lied about the CIA breaking into TwilightGardener Jan 2015 #23
To answer your question, yes. But ... aggiesal Jan 2015 #7
No. Hissyspit Jan 2015 #27
This would explain why Kelvin Mace Jan 2015 #32
Yes, possibly. It also explains the handpicked CIA investigation panel TwilightGardener Jan 2015 #33
Guess We Know What Side The White House Is On billhicks76 Jan 2015 #41
Now THIS is something to genuinely be upset about. Vinca Jan 2015 #3
Everyone does it.... ForgoTheConsequence Jan 2015 #4
Something about old news. Something about Obama haters... n/t RufusTFirefly Jan 2015 #9
Something about if Congress is doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about. IDemo Jan 2015 #15
It was the Senate doncha know Autumn Jan 2015 #21
This was cleared with Obama? This is a big fucking deal, not in a good way. Autumn Jan 2015 #14
It doesn't say it was cleared with Obama, they're just trying to make you think that. You really okaawhatever Jan 2015 #19
Seriously. You really gonna try that one? And gonna toss in the Senate's dirty hands too? Autumn Jan 2015 #20
Absolutely. I'm interested in the facts. I bothered to learn them. My mistake if I thought that's okaawhatever Jan 2015 #22
Go look up DiFi's comments about this - she has laid it all out for everyone to see Hestia Jan 2015 #39
Yes, she did do that but that was after she was already caught. I don't know if Difi did the right okaawhatever Jan 2015 #40
She didn't take jack - if you *read*, you will see where she states that the Senate Staff Hestia Jan 2015 #45
Who's in Charge tiptonic Jan 2015 #17
The MIC. DeSwiss Jan 2015 #36
McDonough spoke to Brennan without speaking to Obama about... grasswire Jan 2015 #24
Nope, sorry, I still think Feinstein is correct in this - remember her Senate Floor Speech? Hestia Jan 2015 #29
Hestia, highlight the quoted material, then click the "excerpt" tag tblue37 Jan 2015 #37
Oh! okay, I got it! Thank you so much! Hestia Jan 2015 #38
You're welcome! nt tblue37 Jan 2015 #42
This is not good. blackspade Jan 2015 #30
Agreed, agreed, agreed. This could be a constitutional crisis and I do not like it at Hestia Jan 2015 #31
K&R DeSwiss Jan 2015 #34
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2015 #35
K&R! elias49 Jan 2015 #43
Seems like 'we the people' elias49 Jan 2015 #44
+1 Hestia Jan 2015 #46
Just when you think it couldn't get any Aerows Jan 2015 #47
and a big K & R! n/t wildbilln864 Jan 2015 #48

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
1. Am I the only one who thinks this is deadly serious and troubling
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:31 PM
Jan 2015

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)
2. If true, it sounds like big-time wrongdoing to me.
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:38 PM
Jan 2015

Big-fucking-time.

the question "why" keeps coming to mind.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
5. It makes me queasy to my stomach, to be honest.
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:46 PM
Jan 2015

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

(73,308 posts)
10. If it is accurate,
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:58 PM
Jan 2015

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)
13. Yes. I would hope Obama did not know this was all going on.
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 05:09 PM
Jan 2015

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

(60,065 posts)
25. "Need to know" is well known among
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 07:22 PM
Jan 2015

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)
26. Well, they would want him to have plausible deniability, if nothing else.
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 07:26 PM
Jan 2015

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.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
6. Nope you are not alone on that, it is big trouble if true.
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:54 PM
Jan 2015

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)
8. I guess we just figured out why Brennan hasn't been fired yet.
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:56 PM
Jan 2015

He'll bring the administration down if they try to shitcan him, I'll bet.

KeepItReal

(7,769 posts)
12. Director Brennan and Chief of Staff McDonough would have to go
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:59 PM
Jan 2015

...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)
16. Interestingly, though, the CIA Inspector General has very recently resigned
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 05:56 PM
Jan 2015

(a couple weeks ago) to look for opportunities "in the private sector". Supposedly has nothing to do with this matter. Supposedly.

okaawhatever

(9,453 posts)
18. You should have read the article. It explains quite clearly Brennan's position and has relevant
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 06:18 PM
Jan 2015

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:

Brennan, however, staunchly denied to the Inspector General that he had ever ordered such an invasive search. When asked about his alleged order to use "whatever means necessary," Brennan said that he "would never use those words," according to the IG report. The director said that he "only" recalled asking whether the lawyers were sure Senate staff had actually obtained the internal CIA material.


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:

Additionally, a CIA Accountability Review Board defended Brennan in findings also released on Wednesday, saying the spy chief had not understood the kind of computer search that would be required to determine what he wanted to know.

“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:


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.



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)
23. Brennan is a known liar. He openly lied about the CIA breaking into
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 07:06 PM
Jan 2015

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

(8,863 posts)
7. To answer your question, yes. But ...
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:55 PM
Jan 2015

Princess DiFi said it was OK to spy on Americans.

They must have taken her at her word.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
33. Yes, possibly. It also explains the handpicked CIA investigation panel
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 09:27 PM
Jan 2015

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.

ForgoTheConsequence

(4,846 posts)
4. Everyone does it....
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:44 PM
Jan 2015

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.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
14. This was cleared with Obama? This is a big fucking deal, not in a good way.
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 05:42 PM
Jan 2015

This needs to be investigated.

okaawhatever

(9,453 posts)
19. It doesn't say it was cleared with Obama, they're just trying to make you think that. You really
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 06:20 PM
Jan 2015

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

(44,743 posts)
20. Seriously. You really gonna try that one? And gonna toss in the Senate's dirty hands too?
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 06:35 PM
Jan 2015
okaywhatever

okaawhatever

(9,453 posts)
22. Absolutely. I'm interested in the facts. I bothered to learn them. My mistake if I thought that's
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 06:50 PM
Jan 2015

what you cared about too.

 

Hestia

(3,818 posts)
39. Go look up DiFi's comments about this - she has laid it all out for everyone to see
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 11:58 PM
Jan 2015

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

(9,453 posts)
40. Yes, she did do that but that was after she was already caught. I don't know if Difi did the right
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 12:16 AM
Jan 2015

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)
45. She didn't take jack - if you *read*, you will see where she states that the Senate Staff
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 12:56 PM
Jan 2015

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)
17. Who's in Charge
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 06:11 PM
Jan 2015

Makes me wonder who really controls the country. The CIA or the (supposed) elected government.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
24. McDonough spoke to Brennan without speaking to Obama about...
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 07:11 PM
Jan 2015

....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)
29. Nope, sorry, I still think Feinstein is correct in this - remember her Senate Floor Speech?
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 07:58 PM
Jan 2015
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/3/feinstein-statement-on-intelligence-committee-s-cia-detention-interrogation-report

Per an exchange of letters in 2009, then-Vice Chairman Bond, then-Director Panetta, and I agreed in an exchange of letters that the CIA was to provide a “stand-alone computer system” with a “network drive” “segregated from CIA networks” for the committee that would only be accessed by information technology personnel at the CIA—who would “not be permitted to” “share information from the system with other [CIA] personnel, except as otherwise authorized by the committee.”


*I am taking this to mean at the onset, no one in the CIA would be allowed to access this drive.

In addition to demanding that the documents produced for the committee be reviewed at a CIA facility, the CIA also insisted on conducting a multi-layered review of every responsive document before providing the document to the committee. This was to ensure the CIA did not mistakenly provide documents unrelated to the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program or provide documents that the president could potentially claim to be covered by executive privilege.


*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.

The CIA started making documents available electronically to the committee staff at the CIA leased facility in mid-2009. The number of pages ran quickly to the thousands, tens of thousands, the hundreds of thousands, and then into the millions. The documents that were provided came without any index, without organizational structure. It was a true “document dump” that our committee staff had to go through and make sense of.

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 investigation—in 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 don’t 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

(64,979 posts)
37. Hestia, highlight the quoted material, then click the "excerpt" tag
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 10:42 PM
Jan 2015

in the set of HTML tags beneath the subject box. That will enclose your highlighted text in a lttle gray quotation box.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
30. This is not good.
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 08:28 PM
Jan 2015

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)
31. Agreed, agreed, agreed. This could be a constitutional crisis and I do not like it at
Thu Jan 15, 2015, 08:53 PM
Jan 2015

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...

Response to okaawhatever (Original post)

 

elias49

(4,259 posts)
44. Seems like 'we the people'
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 02:27 AM
Jan 2015

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)
47. Just when you think it couldn't get any
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 01:55 PM
Jan 2015

worse or more sordid, it does.

The CIA isn't out of control, the CIA is in control... of the government, it seems.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»White House Knew Of CIA S...