CIA Director Freaks Out After Senator Wyden Points Out How The CIA Spied On The Senate
from the not-so-cool-under-fire dept
If you're a CIA Director, one would assume that you know how to be cool under fire, right? Apparently that's not the case for current CIA Director John Brennan who seemed to completely freak out when Senator Ron Wyden started asking questions about the CIA's infamous decision to spy on the network and computers of Senate Intelligence Committee staffers who were compiling a report on the CIA's torture program. The details are a bit complex, but the short version is that the Intelligence Committee, which has oversight powers over the CIA, had been set up in a CIA building, with special access to CIA documents, and a special search tool. Apparently, at some point, that search tool returned a document which the CIA had never intended to share with the intelligence committee staffers. That document, called "the Panetta Review" was a draft document that then-CIA chief Leon Panetta had tasked people internal at the CIA to prepare on what the Senate Intelligence Committee staffers were likely to find as they went through the documents.Yes, this is fairly meta. You had Senate staffers reviewing CIA documents, and at the same time, the CIA reviewing those same documents to try to get out ahead of any controversy -- and to make matters confusing, the Senate staffers then got access to that CIA review document as part of their regular searches. When the CIA was questioned about this Panetta review, they freaked out, wondering how the Senate staffers got their hands on the document, and did what the CIA does: they spied on the Senate staffers' computers and network to try to determine how they got the document in the first place. This was despite a promise from the CIA that the Senate staffers' computers and network were considered off-limits (due to an even earlier incident). That resulted in Senator Dianne Feinstein accusing the CIA of illegally spying on the Senate (its overseers). In response, Brennan first denied the spying altogether, and then insisted that it was the Senate staffers who broke the law, saying they illegally mishandled classified CIA documents in how they handled the Panetta Review.
Eventually, the DOJ decided that there wasn't enough evidence that either side broke the law, and refused to make any criminal charges either way. While both the CIA's Inspector General and a special review board Brennan himself set up found that the CIA did, in fact, spy on the Senate staffers' network and computers, and that this was inappropriate, neither seemed to say that it rose to a truly controversial level. Not surprisingly, the review board Brennan set up himself cleared him of wrongdoing.
Mixed in with all of this are remaining questions about how involved Brennan himself actually was in all of this (he refuses to say) and an ongoing request for an apology. While the CIA's Inspector General claimed that Brennan apologized for the breach, later reporting by Jason Leopold at Vice showed that Brennan had drafted an apology, but never sent it. Instead, he apparently provided a very narrow apology solely to Feinstein and then vice chair Saxby Chambliss, basically of the "I'm sorry if what did upset you" manner.
Given this, during a rare open Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Wyden decided to quiz Brennan about all of this, leading to a rather sarcastic and testy exchange that needs to be watched to be believed:
Wyden cuts him off, quoting directly from the report and notes that other agencies have all said it would be inappropriate to review Senate oversight computer systems, and asks Brennan if he disagrees. Brennan is clearly pissed off:
Brennan: Yes, I think you mischaracterize both their comments as well as what's in those reports. And I apologized to the Chairman and the Vice Chairman about the de minimis access and inappropriate access that CIA officers made to five emails or so of Senate staffers during that investigation. And I apologized to them for that very specific inappropriate action that was taken as part of a very reasonable investigative action. But do not say that we spied on Senate computers or files. We did not do that. We were fulfilling our responsibilities.Wyden then admits his time is up... but Brennan's so angry that he won't give up. He breaks all proper Senate hearing protocol and jumps back in, asking Wyden to say, again, that it was the Senate staffers' fault for accessing the Panetta Review:
Wyden: I read the exact words of the Inspector General and the Review Board. You appointed the Review Board! They said nobody ought to be punished, but they said there was improper access. And my point is, in our system of government, we have responsibilities to do vigorous oversight. And we can't do vigorous oversight if there are improper procedures used to access our files.
Do you not agree there was improper access that senate staffers had to CIA internal deliberative documents? Was that not inappropriate or unauthorized?Wyden angrily points out that everything the Senate staffers did was appropriate, and anyway, he's now asking about the CIA's activities, and points to the Inspector General review and the other review board... all the while with Brennan angrily shaking his head at Wyden. When Wyden finishes, Brennan goes back to being snarky, saying:
And I'm still awaiting the review that was done by the Senate to take a look at what the staffers actions were.And then there's this:
Separation of powers between the executive, legislative branches, Senator, goes both ways.In short: even if you have oversight over us, don't mess with the CIA, Senator. That's quite a statement.
He then goes on to again claim that Wyden is mischaracterizing everything, and that what the CIA did was entirely appropriate. Wyden concludes:
It's pretty hard to mischaracterize word for word quotes that use the words "improper access."Indeed.
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, john brennan, oversight, ron wyden, senate intelligence committee, separation of powers, spying, torture report
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wyden: I think I'm entitled to.
Brennan: You want answers?
Wyden: I want the truth!
Brennan: You can't handle the truth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time's up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oversight vs Secrecy
...
'Do you not agree there was improper access that senate staffers had to CIA internal deliberative documents? Was that not inappropriate or unauthorized?'
For oversight to be in any way effective, there can be no such thing as 'improper access', because if the ones providing oversight can be told 'No, you don't get to see that', or 'No, you're not allowed to ask for that' then there can be no oversight, as the ones theoretically being overseen can simply refuse to provide anything they think will make them look bad or expose actions that they don't want known.
'And I'm still awaiting the review that was done by the Senate to take a look at what the staffers actions were.'
Though I'm sure it would never happen, I'd love it if Wyden and the others called his bluff here. Call together a few of his colleagues, go into a room, wait five minutes, come out to declare that after a thorough investigation into the events the staffers did nothing wrong, and then dare Brennan to object. I imagine the point would be impossible for anyone to miss at that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have a lot of this these days. The DOJ, whose leader is appointed by the POTUS, never seems to indict anyone doing the bidding of the POTUS.
What this case in particular says is that the CIA is now an autonomous agency that exists on its own and outside anybody's control or oversight. That my friends, is one dangerous agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what happens when those charged with oversight fail to do their job. Those they are supposed to oversee no longer fear them because they have been given free reign because terrorism for far to long. They no longer can be reigned in because of the political spin machine to protect the narratives. To dare question the CIA is unAmerican and disloyal, even if what they are doing violates the letter & intent of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the other hand (and here, I am speaking more to whatever CIA spooks are tasked with analyzing the public reaction to this exchange) is that I was born and raised in Oregon, and Senator Wyden may not be the flashiest and most photogenic Senator around, be he is beloved by his constituents.
Any fucked up thing ever happens to him, and the CIA would be wise to realize that The Honorable Senator Ron Wyden is protected by the homegrown Native Oregonian '100 Heads Life and Casualty Company'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They are willing to spy on citizens in violation of the letter & spirit of the law. Watching the abuses of power in this country, it isn't that great of a leap to think that those with access to unlimited data on targets would put it to use for their own ends.
It would explain why sometimes we see laws passed that no rational person would agree to. Sometimes its money, but sometimes one is left to wonder who has what evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Indeed. Southern Oregon Coast Chapter member here. And yeah, he's the only Senator left in Congress who doesn't pull any punches, and is on the IC's enemy "list", as were Senators Pike and Frank Church. Both of whom the CIA tried to destroy after they held hearings that exposed the CIA for the rogue, murderous agency they are. However, Col. Fletcher Prouty went much further in his exposure of what the CIA truly is. Too much to post here. Research his name and you will see. However, you better have a free year of time to go down that rabbit hole. You will NEVER be the same. Especially after reading his exposure of the Secret Team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Making the Impossible Work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That comment was indeed out of line and very worrying.
How does it go both ways? The Intelligence Committee is in charge with overseeing the CIA, there's no "other way".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He was right the first time. Brennan and the "accountability" board he convened decided in advance of any investigation that the actions of the CIA were reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wyden's re-election in some doubt?
Watch next week, same median time, same median channel!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wyden's re-election in some doubt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wyden's re-election in some doubt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wyden's re-election in some doubt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wyden's re-election in some doubt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-atrocities/5348804
Btw, don't you get tired of leaving a slime trail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
makes me warm and fuzzy to think about it,, google search at cia headquarters buahaha luzl #notafraidanymore boo@hoo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True, the CIA investigation should have been strictly internal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good to see the other shoe drop also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're saying Wyden is being stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is it that books, tv shows, movies have all pointed out for decades just how shockingly disgusting a spy agency spying on its own government is?
How are we as a society not crucifying the CIA on the proverbial cross for even daring to spy on a single American citizen let alone the Senators in charge of overseeing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=freaks+out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would classify Brennan as "unsettled". Bad enough, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why doesn't Wyden answer the questions? Then again, why doesn't Wyden explain how he got rich in office?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is there some reason a Senator overseeing a federal agency is required to answer questions from that agency in a Senate hearing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's an important question - it's quite similar in nature to a 4th amendment issue. If the material is obtained illegally or through less than savory means, shouldn't that also be part of the discussion?
Wyden wants to ignore wrong doing that he LIKES to go after the wrong doing he doesn't like. That isn't playing fair at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
central idiot agency
words. Is there a moral politician willing to stop this game of charades?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]