Whistleblower Edward Snowden, in a rare interview with the New Yorker on Wednesday, answered accusations leveled by Rep. Mike “Spyfinder” Rogers (R-MI) and Sen. Dianne “I Know Guns” Feinstein on the last episode of Meet the Press. In case you missed it, here are some of the gems from the show: (I’ve put all the important phrases showing deception or manipulation in italics)
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS: [Snowden] was a thief, who we believe had some help, who stole information the vast majority had nothing to do with privacy. Our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines have been incredibly harmed by the data that he has taken with him and we believe now is in the hands of nation states.
DAVID GREGORY: Who helped him?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS: Well, there were certain questions that we have to get answered. Where some of this aid, first of all, if it was a privacy concern he had, he didn’t look for information on the privacy side for Americans. He was stealing information that had to do with how we operate overseas to collect information to keep Americans safe. That begs the question. And some of the things he did were beyond his technical capabilities. Raises more questions. How he arranged travel before he left. How he was ready to go, he had a go bag, if you will.
DAVID GREGORY: But how high level, do you think?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS: Well, let me just say this. I believe there’s a reason he ended up in the hands, the loving arms, of an FSB agent in Moscow. I don’t think that’s a coincidence, number one. Number two, and let me just talk about this. I think it’s important.
DAVID GREGORY: You think the Russians helped Ed Snowden?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS: I believe there’s questions to be answered there. I don’t think it was a gee-whiz luck event that he ended up in Moscow under the handling of the FSB.
First of all, I can say pretty confidently here that Rep. Rogers is lying. Every other phrase is “I believe,” which isn’t what you want to begin a statement with when you’re accusing someone of spying on the United States. You better have something a bit more concrete than your own suppositions. Let’s also not forget that Mike Rogers has some vested interest in these anti-privacy programs, since his own wife stood to benefit from the passing of CISPA (remember that one?). He even bragged on Twitter about how much money his committee got in return for him supporting the anti-privacy bill…then deleted the tweet. Sorry, Mike, the internet is forever.
In addition, Rogers came from the FBI. He knows about social engineering. He knows about framing discussions and engaging in certain types of verbal subterfuge. This means that on that program, he was engaging in a very specific type of campaign. His whole objective was to plant doubt in the minds of the American people about Snowden’s motives while still staying vague enough to be legal. In short, Rogers thinks you’re a moron, and figures that if he drops enough innuendo and insinuates enough diabolical things, your own head will do his light work for him. Just in case you were still waffling on the fence, Feinstein decided to pile on as well with her own brand of “just maybe”.
DAVID GREGORY:
And do you agree with Chairman Rogers that he may have had help from the Russians?
SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN:
He may well have. We don’t know at this stage. But I think to glorify this act is really to set sort of a new level of dishonor. And this goes to where this metadata goes. Because the N.S.A. are professionals. They are limited in number to 22 who have access to the data. Two of them are supervisors. They are vetted. They are carefully supervised. The data goes anywhere else. How do you provide that level of supervision?
See how that was done? He may have. We don’t know. That plants a very specific thought in the listener’s mind. And here’s another kicker…Feinstein lied her wrinkled butt off too.
Now, where she says 22 people have access? Not true. More like 125, Dianne. By the way…the total number of analysts that actually have access to everything that the NSA collects is far, far bigger than you think. Basically, Feinstein sat on national television and lied to you. Not that this is news from this administration or this Congress. Lying is the standard operating procedure.
I would like to point out Snowden’s responses. He does use the word “absurd,” like we saw the other day in Wendy Davis’ non-denial. The difference is, Davis never actually denied the accusations. Snowden is very, very clear about his denial. “[The accusation] won’t stick…. Because it’s clearly false, and the American people are smarter than politicians think they are.” There’s one. His legal advisor John Wizner: “Every news organization in the world has been trying to confirm that story. They haven’t been able to, because it’s false.” There’s two. See how clear that was? It’s false. No qualifiers, no ‘categorical denials’. Just, “it’s false.” That is a credible denial. Read the whole interview. There are more.
The takeaways from this latest debacle? The government very desperately wants Snowden to shut up. They want his head on a platter, but since they can’t find him and can’t kill him, they are stuck smearing him. Ineffectively and deceitfully, I might add. We need to be holding these people accountable.
Daniel says: Nice try to cover it up.
GWB says: You italicized one bit from Rogers that is NOT deceitful: “He was stealing information that had to do with how we operate overseas”. This is absoluely true. Let’s not make Snowden into some sort of Bill Of Rights superhero. The guy stole what he stole in order to perpetuate the wikileaks mentality of breaking down all governments. He was NOT initially nor primarily interested in helping restore a Constitutional federal government.
Should we be most concerned with those bits of information showing how the NSA is spying on Americans? ABSOLUTELY. And, once we’ve gotten that dealt with, I have no problem whatsoever bringing Snowden up on charges of espionage and/or treason. Because that is what he did. Period. The vast majority of the data that he stole has nothing to do with Constitutional abuses. Indeed, most of it is the stuff we want our government doing, and it hurt our interests for it to be revealed.
Otherwise, I agree with your assessment, Kit: the government desperately wants him to shut up, so they can bury this NSA thing and move along.
Karen says: The definition of espionage is the stealing, (by a government or individual), of classified information and delivering it to an ENEMY of the proprietary Country. Snowden stole information and turned it over to the AMERICAN PEOPLE! So is it safe to assume our Government considers WE THE PEOPLE the ENEMY?
“The act of obtaining, delivering, transmitting, communicating, or receiving information about the national defense with an intent, or reason to believe, that the information may be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation. Espionage is a violation of 18 United States Code 792-798 and Article 106, Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice. See also counterintelligence.”
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com
GWB says: The definition of espionage is… and delivering it to an ENEMY
You are wrong. (You might want a more authoritative source than “freedictionary.com”, btw*.) Heck, you’re wrong by the very US code you quote. Let’s unpack this.
The UCMJ (to which Snowden is not subject) and 18 US Code (to which he is) both define espionage using the language “or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” This means any nation, not just our enemies. This includes publishing it in open sources (The Guardian, wikileaks, Pravda, etc.), since most of them can read. Snowden did not turn his information over to “the American people”, he published it openly in a foreign newspaper. He also handed some portion of it over to the wikileaks folks.
He also did not merely disclose the fact that the NSA was spying on us, he stole EVERYTHING HE COULD GET HIS HANDS ON and is parceling it out to his foreign benefactors (the Chinese hoovered his computers before he left Hong Kong) and his chosen media outlets.
Remember, too, that this was not something that Snowden stumbled across and decided it just had to get out to ‘the people’. He specifically lied in order to obtain that position so he could steal EVERYTHING HE COULD GET HIS HANDS ON.
The man clearly committed espionage. He is a spy and should be prosecuted as such. Right after we get the NSA strung up by its thumbs and stop its despotic actions.
.
.
.
* Here’s what the 1913 Webster’s has to say:
The practice or employment of spies; the practice of watching the words and conduct of others, to make discoveries, as spies or secret emissaries; secret watching.
Here’s yourdictionary.com (evidently the location for the Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed.):
Espionage is defined as the act of spying or the use of spies by a government or a company.
Here’s the Collins English Dictionary:
the systematic use of spies to obtain secret information, esp by governments to discover military or political secrets
Oh, wait, I stand corrected. Here’s the entry in freedictionary:
the systematic use of spies to get military or political secrets
You’ll notice that none of those definitions include a requirement of giving the information to an enemy.
“…we believe now is in the hands of nation states.”
Excuse me?! Mike, the United States of America is a union of Nation States, so DO NOT say that in such a condescending way. YOU work for the federal govt – that’s where you get YOUR paycheck from, so you are suspect, as much as Snowden.
GWB says: Actually, the United States is a union of States. That union is a Nation. Becuse of the compact creating the United States, the individual States do not have individual representation among the other nations.
I fail to see how stating that the information Snowden stole is in the hands of foreign nations is condescending in any way.
GWB says: Actually, he has given everything to the Chinese, since they hoovered his computer before letting him depart Hong Kong. And, he has undoubtedly given everything to the Russians – wittingly or not. He has also already given much (not all, since the authorities recently snagged some of the information he was trying to pass) to the reporters with whom he is working – they are releasing it piecemeal to guard their gravy train.
But all or part does not matter, so long as he gave even one piece of secret information to another government.
10 Comments