Question: Will Dianne Feinstein Investigate Her Own Leak Of Classified Info? Will She Face Espionage Act Charges?
from the just-asking... dept
So, we just discussed how it appears that Dianne Feinstein accidentally confirmed what was widely suspected: that the NSA is tapping the internet backbone to get access to emails. This is interesting on many levels, not the least of which is that Feinstein herself has been famously harsh against any kind of leak, regularly arguing that the leaks themselves are more damaging than what the leaks may reveal about US government abuse. In the past, Feinstein has raged against leakers:
In a televised interview Wednesday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein repeatedly vented her ire over leaks of classified information and she signaled that she favors a more aggressive crackdown on those who are passing national security secrets to the press.Similarly, she has argued that Ed Snowden is a "traitor" for revealing information, though unlike her, he didn't reveal this particular program (or at least it hasn't been reported on yet).
"What we're seeing...is an Anschluss, an avalanche of leaks. And it's very, very disturbing. You know, it's dismayed our allies. It puts American lives in jeopardy. It puts our nation's security in jeopardy," Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on CNN's "Situation Room" program.
Meanwhile, the Senate's current rules on revealing classified information suggest that an investigation is warranted:
The Senate Office of Security and the House counterpart are charged with investigating or coordinating investigations of suspected security violations by employees. In addition, investigations by the House and Senate Ethics Committees of suspected breaches of security are authorized by each chamber’s rules, directly and indirectly. The Senate Ethics Committee, importantly, has the broad duty to “receive complaints and investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and violations of rules and regulations of the Senate.” The panel is also directed “to investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence information [from the Senate Intelligence Committee] by a Member, officer or employee of the Senate.”If, for example, Senator Wyden had ever actually revealed the details of any classified program (as some had urged him to do), you can rest assured that such an investigation (along with a public tarring and feathering) would likely have occurred. It's also unlikely that he would be allowed to remain on the Intelligence Committee.
So, will Senator Feinstein call for an investigation into her own leak? Will she call herself a traitor? We'll see...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dianne feinstein, investigations, leaks, nsa surveillance, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sometimes
It does not seem to matter what crimes supporters commit. They all have immunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Democracy
A set of Principles against which all government practices and conduct could be measured. One of the key principles being that the government and the armed forces serve the people, (accountable to the people) and NOT the people including the armed forces serving or accountable to the government.
How can the government be accountable if there is secrecy about what they are doing? So they have this thing called "National Security" a great big basket in which they can hide just about anything they please, and heaven help anyone who contradicts them on what should be in the basket.
Unless something is done about it, they will soon be hiding all forms of corruption, and Constitutional crimes in that basket. They will soon be hiding their expense accounts and all other forms of corruption in there, protected from audit.
The armed forces are sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, and the President is the Commander In Chief, What is he doing to defend the Constitution? Defend the Rights of the People against these Constitutional crimes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Democracy
correction,
1. Armed services accountable to the government, IE if a member of the services lies to the government it is illegal, possibly treason, (general rule, be careful enumerating exceptions).
2. Government is accountable to the people, IE if a member of the government lies, possibly slanderous, possibly treason (general rule, be careful enumerating exceptions these guys are lawyers).
3. The People are taxpayers, If the government allocates taxes the people expect it spent in a way that builds up the nation (general rule, Money is like oxygen, you can get oxygen poisoning. Some parts of government are starved of money, other parts like the NSA Get more than one budget allocation.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Though I realize this is a rhetorical question, a serious answer is warranted.
NO!
I believe Senator Feinstein is a Platinum Charter Member of the "Do as I say DAMMIT! Not as I do" Society of Purchased Imperial "Public Servant" Righteous Royalty. She's therefore immune to any of the consequences she would impose on others. Simple really. {sigh}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feinstein
I think Feinstein has long since sold her dignity, discarded her moral compass, and offloaded her self respect.
It is folly to even consider she has any introspection what so ever, and would care what the "little people" (citizens) think of her.
There is no way she would believe what she did to be wrong, and even if it was pointed out to her in no uncertain terms she would still deny any wrongdoing.
She considers herself above the law and incapable of doing anything illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
High court/ Low court.
She does exactly what she decried, and will face nothing.
Anything she has to say now is pointless, do as I say not as I do is no way to be a leader.
Justice and the Rule of Law in this country is broken, and every day she doesn't face the same charges she demands be applied to others highlights how screwed up the country is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO, Mike. What part of Greenwald's "absolute immunity" don't you understand?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/27/ron-wyden-nsa-systematically- deceived
Which has this link:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/1/breach_or_debate_congress_snowden_prism%20
n your first link, you wrote: "during Thursday's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Dianne Feinstein more or less admitted" -- SO as Feinstein was in session and Greenwald says it's "absolute immunity", Ackerman agrees, and the bit you quote reads "by employees", which Senators are NOT, the only possible conclusion is that you ginned this up out of ignorance. -- But in any case, you don't actually call for any action, just fade out into question and ...
Typical way to end a week here at Techdirt, not even with a whimper, but only "..."
Mike Masnick on Techdirt: "its typical approach to these things: take something totally out of context, put some hysterical and inaccurate phrasing around it, dump an attention-grabbing headline on it and send it off to the press."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO, Mike. What part of Greenwald's "absolute immunity" don't you understand?
Take loopy tour OOTB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO, Mike. What part of Greenwald's "absolute immunity" don't you understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO, Mike. What part of Greenwald's "absolute immunity" don't you understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO, Mike. What part of Greenwald's "absolute immunity" don't you understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO, Mike. What part of Greenwald's "absolute immunity" don't you understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO, Mike. What part of Greenwald's "absolute immunity" don't you understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
______________________________________________________________
Again we will see the same sort of no actions that have so typically followed the in-crowd around. Those that believe the laws do not apply to them but do apply to the little people.
I wonder why the American people have no trust in their government when stuff like this is constantly being thrown in their face?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nah, she'll throw on some Depends and pretend everything is fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violation of Oath
What do you call collusion among a group which is violating their oath?
Aren't they some sort of traitors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violation of Oath
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anschluss means a connection, not an invasion or rampaging horde. Common mistake for those whose only contact with the word is the 1938 Anschluss of Austria and Germany.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Feinstein, Mike Rogers, and the rest of these people simply cannot grasp is that this behavior is almost exactly what caused the colonies to declare independence from England.
And while they may consider Snowden's actions traitorous, I, and anyone else who believe in the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, considers their action a betrayal of that document (and by extension the Constitution) as well as the 57 men who signed it.
In our eyes, they are the real traitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"No one is above the code! Especially the king!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most obvious flaw
"NSA sysadmin Snowden is evil and abused his position"
NSA is made up of Snowdens. Some have swallowed the blue pill and are busy undermining privacy and democracies around the world, and others are the good guys who need to be watched night and day, lest they rat out their boss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See how easy it is to bypass those "rules".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feinsten's leak
She also MUST be charged with violation of the Espionage Act. Congressmen and Senators are subject to the law of the land, not above the law. Neither is obam above the law, but I digress. Jail the senator, strip her of all rights and privileges of her office, and no pension, ever. She should get a minimum of ten years in Federal prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ooops :3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
leaky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: leaky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, the only honest....
Everything he claimed is turning out to be true.
"Impressive" (in quotes, yes ;-)
Whats next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not just be honest
Do you do honestly ??
Or are you able to justify it somehow in your own mind, that somehow your abuse of censorship and free speech is ok for you ?? (but not anyone else) ?
Is it the power to crave, or is it just your inability to deal with people checking your work and calling you out when you are found lying ?
But don't EVER try to convince me you don't abuse those powers, you censor and are against FREE SPEECH.. how are you any better than anyone else, and what qualifies you to claim you are against censorship, and that you support free speech ??
I know you will censor this post with all the rest, but the questions are directed at you Masnick..
I guess you read them when you hold them for moderation for a week or so..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People gave up convincing you that 2 + 2 = 4.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't be so hard on the old gal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]