Nancy Pelosi Admits That Congress Is Scared Of The CIA
from the well-that's-revealing dept
Over the past few months, one thing we keep hearing over and over again from defenders of the intelligence community is that everything is under control and "legal" because Congress has powerful oversight. We've shown, repeatedly, how that's something of a joke. The intelligence community has lied repeatedly, has withheld documents and is generally nonresponsive to oversight attempts by Congress. And, with the reports that the CIA spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee, we also find out that for all the bluster and talk of oversight, folks in Congress are actually scared by the intelligence community.In response to Senator Dianne Feinstein's speech last week calling out the CIA for spying on her staffers, Rep. Nancy Pelosi was asked to comment and gave what might be the most revealing comments to date as to why Congress is so scared of the CIA:
“I salute Sen. Feinstein,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference of the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I’ll tell you, you take on the intelligence community, you’re a person of courage, and she does not do that lightly. Not without evidence, and when I say evidence, documentation of what it is that she is putting forth.”A few months back, the ACLU had posted something questioning whether or not the intelligence community might be blackmailing Congress. And, quite frequently when we write about the intelligence community, we see suggestions in the comments that certain politicians probably cover for the NSA and CIA because they know what those agencies "have on them." I've always dismissed those kinds of claims as being a bit far-fetched, even if they have plenty of historical precedent. So far, there's certainly been no direct evidence of that happening.
Pelosi added that she has always fought for checks and balances on CIA activity and its interactions with Congress: “You don’t fight it without a price because they come after you and they don’t always tell the truth.
And yet... Pelosi's comments certainly seem to hint at even more nefarious activity by the intelligence community against politicians who dare to actually do the job of oversight. The point of that ACLU post linked above is that, even if it's not happening, the fact that we can't definitively rule it out is a serious problem for democracy. And just the fact that some of the most powerful members of Congress, who are theoretically in charge of oversight, are now publicly admitting that they're scared of how the CIA fights back when they take them on, suggests that the intelligence community really is rotten to the core. And Congressional oversight, as it stands today, is clearly not able to deal with the issue by itself.
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: cia, congress, dianne feinstein, john brennan, nancy pelosi, oversight, senate, spying scandal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
1. So now, Nancy you understand why Snowden had to take the documents don't you. He had to have the evidence, right?
2. You are just now figuring out that the intelligence community lies? Really, it took you that long to figure that one out after Clapper and the others?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mischaracterization
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CONgressWOMAN screwed by a Liar?
But even though I hate Pelosi, I welcome another mouth that initially appears to speak reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Government scared of itself...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wink, wink
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I would have done the same a few years ago. Yet now while I'm not cynical enough to believe there is blackmailing I'm quite convinced they do have info on politicians enough to "pressure" them if they see it fit. The question is: how long till they use that tool that is directly available for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Government scared of itself...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So at what point...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
how is that crow tasting?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Government officials I trust.
Think about it this way. I'm much more likley to vote for you if you've been caught breaking the law because that proves to me you are not sneaky enough to get a way with it! and screw me and the rtest of The People over with just the CIA blackmailing you...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Government officials I trust.
A lot of people let the small stuff slide, because it falsely assuages people just as you have admitted.
Think on it and realize why people hate goody goodies so damn much! We all know our own sins and to see one that is blameless just eats at our souls until we see at least one of their deep dark secrets!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No
If you've done something wrong, it will surely be exposed. If it has only the appearance of wrongdoing, they'll first exaggerate it and then exploit it. If you've done nothing wrong at all, they'll invent something plausible yet hard enough to disprove that it will ruin your reputation anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So at what point...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pelosi Action Plan?
______________________________
These are the words of sitting United States Representative. Let that sink in.
Since some of us hired her to represent our interests in Congress, what in the hell is Rep. Pelosi going to do about the executive branch snubbing its nose at the legislative/judicial branches (indeed, snubbing their nose at all of us)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pelosi and the CIA..
Their charter also PROHIBITS their operation on U.S soil, and if they are doing so, imprison all of them and let them rot there. Charge them with treason and shutter the building and liquidate the assets to repay the people for the thefts and crimes they have committed against us, andin direct violation of the constitution!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That it's something that will carry punch in the hand of any secret service over its overseers should make you think twice about what powers it makes sense to create in the first place.
This is a genie that is very hard to recork again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"I once sent a dozen of my friends a telegram saying, 'Flee at once-all has been discovered.' They all left town immediately". ~ Mark Twain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
just saying...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pelosi Action Plan?
I'm just saying...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Does everyone forget?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Government scared of itself...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not necessarily, as she all but flat out says, even if they don't have something on their target, nothing stops them from just making stuff up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Government officials I trust.
It's called "limited hangout" -- confess to the relatively small wrongdoing so that people stop digging and won't discover the really big wrongdoing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So at what point...
The other, scarier possibility is that the Department of Homeland Security has stopped taking orders from the White House.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There's a saying for this I believe...
Pretending, just for a moment, that the House and Senate actually were what they are supposed to be, the people's representatives, that would make this statement by her essentially a flat out admission that the system has been corrupted to the point of tyranny, with a thin, fake shell of democracy in place to hide it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Pelosi and the CIA..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So at what point...
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/13/amid-cia-spying-scandalaquestionofaccount abilityontorture.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Government officials I trust.
However I'd rather know I'm dealing with a confirmed liar and a cheat than someone who I think might actually be a good person, even if I might disagree with their politics like Udall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Far Fetched?
> we see suggestions in the comments that certain politicians probably
> cover for the NSA and CIA because they know what those agencies
> "have on them." I've always dismissed those kinds of claims
> as being a bit far-fetched
Far fetched? Really?
We used to hear speculation about how badly the NSA was spying on us. Those were called far fetched also.
But in reality, they were far fetched in that what the NSA was actually doing was far worse than all of the far fetched speculations.
Knowing anything about human nature, greed, power, lust, do you really think it is far fetched that the intelligence community blackmail-worthy material on every government official they can get their hands on?
I think it would be far fetched to believe that they do not. Think about what kind of people these are. Think about the fact that they have access to vast amounts of private information. Think about the fact that they have basically no real oversight. No counter balancing force to reign them in. Think of the NSA's Star Trek Next Generation bridge. That is a waste of money someone uses for bragging rights -- effectively "look how much taxpayer money I can waste and get away with it!". Wouldn't that set the culture and example for the underlings? This is the CIA we're talking about. The department of American Torture we're talking about. A group that sets up puppet governments. That disappears people. Why would they have any hesitation to gather, and maybe even use blackmail material?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Government officials I trust.
My answer is: I trust somebody when I believe I have a very good idea about the sorts of things they can be trusted about and the sorts of things they can't be. If I know someone is a certain kind of crook, I trust them more than an unknown person simply because I know what they can't be trusted about and can avoid those landmines.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They is what they is
C R I M I N A L
Prosecute 'em.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Easy solution to this:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Everyone paying attention knew the NSA was engaging in wholesale surveillance of US citizens. It took Snowden to prove it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Easy solution to this:
I'm not sure they can. The CIA is part of the executive branch, not the legislative. So is the DOJ, and Congress can't just tell the DOJ to investigate or raid anyone at all.
What Congress can do is defund the CIA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nothing New Here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chump change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So at what point...
It's entirely possible the military has its own chain of command. In fact I would conjecture to say it's a very good possibility.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So at what point...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
when??
and there is good reason, but it may be time to put a halt to their domestic activity. Question is how do you do that without completely decomissioning the entire network, NSA
included.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Easy solution to this:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Too long? Nah...
Those 9000 withheld CIA documents? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Right? It's something they and their supporters love saying to the public. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot, look at what happens! What possible reason could the White House have for withholding all of those documents from a duly appointed senate oversight committee? No doubt there are answers to some of this past centuries greatest mysteries in those documents. The "truth" -- no word in the English language is more scary to the kind of people involved in what can only be described as a cover up. The lights have been flicked on and all of the cockroaches began a mad scramble for safety.
So this all leads me to wonder; if there were ever to be a coup, which arm of the government would be the most likely to do so? I know what my answer would be. One then begins to also wonder if it's already happened and when. Looking back through history, I'd put my money on the Kennedy assassinations. Especially when you look at the kind of men who've been President ever since that happened and the kinds of things they've done with their power.
There are actually quite a few indications, things that may have been difficult to explain before, until you begin to work under the assumption the intelligence community (or more likely a secret sect within it) had something to do with the path U.S. history has taken. Here is just one (of many) examples that come to mind; President Obama. So many promises made by a man I'd swear wasn't lying during his campaign (I'm pretty good at being able to tell), yet once in office has mostly done the exact opposite, going so far as to outright betray his professed beliefs even. There are only three possibilities for this; he was a corrupt liar before taking office, corrupted after taking office, or came to be under duress after being sworn in.
Occam's Razor dictates it's most likely one of the first two possibilities, but that doesn't automatically exclude the third. Controlling the outcome of an election would be very difficult to do without getting caught because there are just too many variables involved with doing so. You would never be able to control them all, no matter how powerful and/or wealthy you were -- unless you could perhaps automate much of the process, thereby taking some of those variable out of the equation entirely (voting automation anyone?). If there really had been a coup without the public knowing about it, the third possibility becomes the more likely since you really only have the one variable. That is, of course, provided you have the necessary leverage required to force the President to play ball, something not at all difficult to discover for the intelligence community. Secrets are part of their job description after all.
And what happens if a newly sworn in President refuses? As we've already seen from history, assassination would be one tool. Unfortunately you wouldn't be able to rely on that every time it happens for a number of obvious reasons, so better to attempt getting someone you desire into office (they certainly have plenty of tax payer money for backing their own candidate/agent) and failing to accomplish that, they also have the rather easy option of getting a President impeached using an inconvenient truth or a lie. Doesn't matter which. Just look at what happened with Clinton if you need an example.
All of that is not so far fetched when you realized this kind of thing is also part of the job description, not to mention that if you're willing to believe they've already done this in other countries (i.e. putting their own man in power as part of a secret black-op -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper for example lol), why would it be so hard to believe they've never attempted it in their own home country? After all it's pretty clear that the type of person working in any kind of intelligence capacity is highly likely to believe they'd be doing the right thing, as in entirely for the benefit of their country, and see themselves as a patriotic hero to boot. Look no farther than Senator Rogers for an example of this type of thinking (i.e. the belief it's ok to lie/cheat/steal/kill because it's all being done in service to ones country).
This all sounds more than a little crazy, I know. That is until to listen to the speech President John F. Kennedy made on April 27, 1961; one of the reasons, or so I truly believe, as to why he was assassinated. Some of the words he spoke that day can be construed as nothing less than a serious threat to those whom Kennedy was speaking of. No doubt these were not just people working in a federal capacity, but also people from without; the very rich whom have their own corporate interests for example, those running a criminal enterprise even, and of course the interests of other countries (the USSR during the Cold War for instance). You don't just go about assassinating Presidents without some kind of firm, unshakable belief for doing so. A whim wouldn't be enough IMHO, yet that is what they've always wanted us to believe in the Kennedy's case.
Some may find all of the above hard to believe, but I find it harder to believe there isn't at least one person out there who wouldn't go to those kind of lengths to protect their own interests for the future they envision. It's ultimately a numbers game, whereby given enough of X (the number of people in positions of power both within and outside of the government) and enough of Y (time) that at least one immoral act, such as an assassination of a President, would arise for Z (a damn good reason from their point of view). Kennedy wasn't the first, certainly won't be the last, and I pray we some day find out the truth... which may actually be contained within one of those 9000 documents being withheld by the White House lol.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8093#axzz2jALWYJLZ
PS: While on the topic of secret black-ops, who here has been wondering whether the US intelligence community had something to do with the utter disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370? It has been a very long time since something big, such as 9/11, has happened. Given the kind of things that have been coming to light lately and the resulting heat the NSA/CIA have been taking because of it, right now would be the perfect time to crash a large jet into something on American soil. Doing so would take all that heat off of them by providing a much needed distraction, while at the same time could be used to justify their existence and the things they've been caught red handed doing. Or, if we go by Occam's Razor once again, the flight most likely crashed due to fire. Other than malfunctions, which seem unlikely given the Boeing 777's performance record, the only other thing that would cause communications devices to switch off one after the other in sequence like that would be a fire as it slowly spreads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This explains a lot
It's called blackmail for lack of a better word.
"That's a nice little job you have there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to you, wouldn't it?"
Of course this doesn't mean that Congress had any courage to begin with in tackling the problems of the CIA and the NSA.
It just gives them an excuse to cave every time when someone mentions 'oversight'.
"I'm afraid of what I might see in the dark, therefore I will never turn on the light."
Thanks for not doing your job. Makes me feel really confident in your ability to do it. Perhaps you'd feel better if you got voted out of office because it's pretty obvious you can't handle the responsibilities that go with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
irony?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
irony?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
- Varys Targaryen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They is what they is
"That's a nice constitution you have there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it, wouldn't it?" after all is the core message of the intelligence industry to the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
People including the NSA themselves tend to forget that the NSA are public servants, not public masters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pelosi and the CIA
Now if that doesn't tell anyone how far off the rails this country has gone, nothing will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: chump change
They would not enjoy it as such, but as a necessary part of doing their patriotic duty.
Torture, assassination, abolition of due process can be tolerable tools when they serve to prevent forces to prevail that would consider torture, assassination and abolition of due process tolerable.
Heil U.S.A.!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Easy solution to this:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: irony?
Well, let me quote Mark Twain:
We would not need privacy at all if anybody's outward perception was not actually layered into confidentiality layers like an onion. Arguably, with nothing else below the layers.
Thorough intelligence operation can mess anybody's life up. Tabloids do this in more limited scale, and often (but in no manner always) with the targets having some benefit from popularity and being prepared for it.
But that's peanuts against the kinds of things successful intelligence taps can deliver.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: CONgressWOMAN screwed by a Liar?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mischaracterization
It does not enter her head that she might look like dog food to anybody.
She'll come wondrously back into line again. It's not like there would be much of a detour noticeable in her course, anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
not blackmail, pushback
Not blackmail.
Say something bad about the CIA, they come back at you through their friendly reporters.
Remember Plamegate? If you don't, just ask Scooter Libby.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In other words, by letting the Congresscritters write a law for every idiotic thing under the sun, they've left us and themselves subject to the whims of executive branch actors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: irony?
Nobody's clean. You need a few politicians who just know right from wrong well enough that they are willing to pay that price.
And voters who have the brains and the heart to appreciate it. Given all the chicken shit one reads about Snowden, not going to happen in the U.S.A.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mischaracterization
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy solution to this:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stay tuned.
These guys think they're immune, so they won't be as clever about their abilities as their predecessors.
Only question is, how many congress-critters have to publicly admit they're being blackmailed before you change your thinking.
And please remember:
- blackmail is the favorite pass-time of organized crime, simply because its victims almost never admit to being blackmailed.
The victims, after all, capitulate to the demands of the blackmailer in the hopes that their secrets will remain secret.
To admit to blackmail is to admit to wrong-doing.
That is something very, very, few congress-critters will do, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Please explain the difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spying on Congress
Google: NSA whistleblower Russ Tice
Google: MI5 Annie Machon
Just watch the videos...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So at what point...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nancy Pelosi Admits that Congress is Scared...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I guess we have to bring back the one politician
The former VP, "The Dick" Cheney!
[ link to this | view in thread ]