RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Kirell writes: "Edward Snowden spoke out this week against the process in which House Republicans sought to release a memo full of classified government information."

Edward Snowden. (photo: Wired)
Edward Snowden. (photo: Wired)

Snowden Bashes Nunes: I Was More Careful With Government Secrets Than You Are

By Andrew Kirell, The Daily Beast

03 Feburary 18

The GOP-led intel panel disregarded concerns about risk, unlike when he leaked classified info, the whistleblower said.

dward Snowden spoke out this week against the process in which House Republicans sought to release a memo full of classified government information.

Jake Laperruque, a lawyer for the Project on Government Oversight, tweeted Thursday how House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), who had once called Snowden a “traitor” for his 2013 leak of surveillance documents, was now acting recklessly with government disclosures.

“Journalists disclosing Snowden documents... would interact with the Intelligence Community prior to publication,” the surveillance expert explained. “They certainly didn’t oblige all their requests, but they made good-faith effort to hear concerns on why [the intelligence community] thought some stuff shouldn't be public.”

Snowden concurred, writing: “I required the journalists who broke the 2013 domestic spying stories (as a condition of access) to talk with gov in advance of publication as an extraordinary precaution to prevent any risk of harm. Turns out our standard of care was higher than the actual Intel committee.”

When Snowden leaked surveillance documents to the media in 2013, Laperruque recounted, “we [had] news outlets listening to [intelligence community] concerns about safety of releasing classified info beforehand.” On the other hand, he lamented, “we have Nunes, who called it treason to provide those outlets with info, voting to release classified info without even this basic interaction.”

Indeed, as the famed whistleblower and Laperruque both noted, Nunes and the Republican-led intelligence committee have received repeated warnings from the Department of Justice and the FBI that the memo contains sensitive classified information that could be potentially damaging to national security.

And yet, they seemingly disregarded all concerns on the way to releasing the memo—with President Trump’s approval—on Friday afternoon. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

-71 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-02-03 13:42
I don't see the issue. There was no national security information in the Nunes memo. It did mention FBI sources (i.e., Steele) and methods (i.e., paying Steele) but those have been written about for more than a year.

Nunes' memo was not about anything secret or classified. It only said that certain people in the FBI and DOJ signed and submitted affidavits to the FISA court that they knew to be false. That is a felony. They did it in order to interfere with the free and open electoral process. That's a violation of the Hatch Act.

Snowden is reading to much mainstream media. He's see it soon.

BTW -- it was Mueller who set up a secret Grand Jury to investigate both Snowden and Assange. There are probably secret indictments for both of them right now. They will be released if and when the FBI can gets its claws on either one.
+14 # dickbd 2018-02-03 19:48
I know you're a favorite whipping boy here, but I don't know why you are getting red marks for these comments. You are probably right about the situation in regard to Snowden and Assange.

The fact is that too much stuff is classified in my opinion, and most of it is simply to keep the American public in the dark.

Snowden's point is that he at least didn't release documents that would get anyone harmed. That is always the charge against any leaks--includin g the Pentagon Papers, that secret agents will be disclosed. But the charge is knee-jerk and nearly always made with zero evidence.
-5 # jimsanta 2018-02-03 20:02
I have to agree with Rodion. All the hysteria about the catastrophic risk the memo would cause for our "intelligence" community was simply a Dem/Intel effort to keep from having a generous dose of mud plus egg on their faces. I've read the document and there was no sensitive information released. And the best criticism of it that I've seen has been "We probably could have obtained the FISA warrant without using the dossier." Then why didn't they try, the honest way?!?
+7 # Lgfoot 2018-02-04 09:50
What's dishonest about using the dossier? It suggests that the Russian mob has its hooks into Drumpf. Not exactly a surprise.
+25 # RMF 2018-02-03 20:20

1. You claim:

"Nunes' memo was not about anything secret or classified."

FALSE -- it was all classified -- the Nunes memo even concedes that "FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified."

2. You also claim:

"It only said that certain people in the FBI and DOJ signed and submitted affidavits to the FISA court that they knew to be false."

FALSE -- Nowhere does the Nunes memo make such a claim. Moreover the affidavits remain non-public; nor were they identified specifically in the Nunes memo.

Moreover, in the final paragraph the memo concedes that "the Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign adviser George Popadopolous." That's a doozy of a concession to hold until the last paragraph, as the Popadopolous disclosures pre-dates FBI acquisition of the Steele dossier.

Because this is a probable cause finding -- reasonable suspicion, and not conclusive proof beyond doubt, the claims made in the Nunes memo are weak and insubstantial. The same can be said about your assessment of the Nunes memo, and it's lack of persuasiveness,
-2 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-02-04 11:47
RMF -- It "was" classified and is now "declassified."

No FISA court rulings or applications were included or cited. The Nunes memo makes accusations of misconduct by FBI and DOJ people. Now there has to be an investigation. It will be easy. Just see if the applications made by the DOJ and FBI are honest about the source of their probable cause.

It may be the FISA court does this itself. It can issue a contempt of court citation if the applications were less than fully honest, that is, fraudulent.
0 # RMF 2018-02-06 14:47

You say "No FISA court rulings or applications were included or cited."

So, if your claim is correct, then the Nunes Memo does not sound in the evidentiary record. And that would have to mean the entire Nunes Memo is made up of whole cloth, not out of the evidentiary record.

There is no real controversy here -- among other things the record shows that Russian security was attempting to recruit Page, and that Page himself has bragged about "advising" the Kremlin.
-2 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-02-04 14:48
OK, OK. Take a vallium and calm down. I said in another thread that Nunes' motive in releasing his memo was to push the DOJ to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the actions of the FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, DNI and democratic party candidate. As you correctly say, we now have the probable cause that crimes were committed, and very serious crimes.

I have no idea if the DOJ will appoint a speecial prosecutor. Or if it will do the right thing and fire all the rest of the co-conspirators who are still working in any of these agencies. As we know, the FBI and CIA don't lose these fights. They have been ruthless in the past in protecting themselves and their people.

It would be the job of the special prosecutor to discover conclusive proof and file charges against all the people named in the Nunes memo. But I'd say the chances of that are in the range of 0 to 5%. The Deep State always wins. One thing we will know for sure when the Deep State erases all of its enemies is who really runs the government and who the real fascists are.

I think we also know for sure that the FBI, DOJ, CIA, DNI interfered in the 2016 elections. The bungled the job and Hillary lost anyway. So they decided to destroy Trump. There can be little doubt about that now. It was not the Russians, it was the FBI and DOJ.
0 # RMF 2018-02-06 13:37
RR -- you are a conspiracy theorist/propag andist par excellence!


Moreover the original FISA warrant PREDATED THE STEELE MEMO, so the implication that the FISA process applicable to Page WAS TRIGGERED BY OR BASED UPON THE STEELE MEMO IS TOTALLY FALSE.

The public record makes clear the falsity of claims you and other Trump apologists make about the role of the Steele Memo in obtaining the FISA warrant. This is why you are a conspiracy theorist/propag andist par excellence.
0 # ljslotnick 2018-02-03 23:18
RR: I suggest you get out of the trees and see the forest in front of you. You don't see the issue here? As you have already acknowledged... there is nothing dangerous in this memo. It is pure political theater designed to give Trump some cover if he again attempts to derail the investigation by firing top level people.
So Nunes' idea of even referring to the memo as "classified" was purely to attract people to read Republican poorly-disguise d propaganda.
You make some serious assertions regarding Felony actions on behalf of the FBI and DOJ without a shred of evidence. It seems that you are accepting the content of the Nunes memo at face value? It's established that everything Nunes has done w.r.t. his Leader Trump is politically biased.
You have no idea where Snowden gets his information.
Oh, and BTW, grand juries do not investigate. Juries don't investigate RR. They evaluate evidence. If they aren't provided with adequate evidence, they usually ask for more evidence. They should evaluate the reliability of the evidence. But why the hell is that relevant anyway?
0 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-02-04 18:37
ljs -- just to clear things up:

1. congress is asking for a new special prosecutor to investigate the charges made against certain people in the DOJ and FBI, all named by Nunes. The special prosecutor may convene a grand jury to weigh the evidence he/she produces.

2. knowingly presenting fraudulent affidavit to a federal court is a felony, punishable by 10 years in prison. The FISA applications submitted and signed by Comey, Rosenstein, et al were fraudulent. It will be up to a special prosecutor to prove that. It is not proven yet. The proof will be to look at the FISA applications. Are they the truth and the whole truth. Or are there lies of omission as the Nunes memo alleges? The application is classified so we will not see it, but a special prosecutor will see it.

3. Nunes memo was classified because it was the work of a congressional oversight committee. Now it is declassified.

I am totally mystified about why democrats or Hillary cult members cannot accept the fact that some people in the FBI or DOJ committed crimes. If you read the Strzok-Page texts, they even admit they are committing crimes in texting they way they are. They talk about destroying evidence.

Why has it become democratic party doctrine that Comey, Brennan, Rogers, Mueller, Ohr, McCabe and others can do no evil and never did any evil? Wake up. These are powerful criminals, as Kiriakou wrote just a few weeks ago. Don't support them.
+3 # Lgfoot 2018-02-04 09:47
DOJ and FBI say the memo contains sensitive info. Where do you get your superior expertise?
-3 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-02-04 18:39
I read the memo. DOJ and FBI lie about everything. They don't want anyone saying some of them committed crimes. That's what is sensitive.
+80 # ddd-rrr 2018-02-03 19:07
B-I-G surprise, huh, that 'Bublicans on the House Intelligence Committee
did what they did...? But, "Republicanism" is a synonym for "hypocrisy"!
At least Snowden considered what he was doing, and its possible effects,
and took measures to minimize the possible damage from the release
of the information he wished to expose. Unlike for Nunes, I can have
some respect for Snowden and the value of his efforts.
-2 # yolo 2018-02-05 17:08
Are saying its ok for Snowden and democrats to release documents but it's not ok for the republicans? Sounds like you are the one being a hypocrite. But what is really amazing is the number of positive votes you are getting. If people think its only ok for one side to do things but not the other than that is unequal and wrong no matter what the thought process or intent. Are we equal before the law or not?
+64 # Art947 2018-02-03 19:15
Republicans -- traitors one and all!
+8 # Robbee 2018-02-03 19:40
Quoting Art947:
Republicans -- traitors one and all!


don’t it always seem to go?
that you don’t know what you got till it’s gone? - j. mitchell

“we have seen the enemy! and they are us!” - pogo

"Keep the faith and please remember, despair is not an option.
In Solidarity,”
Bernie Sanders
"Next election, resolve to MAKE OUR VOTE COUNT!”
+3 # WYThomas 2018-02-04 13:41
Nunes = Trump = Nunes. Hand in glove!
-1 # yolo 2018-02-04 14:54
What is the intent of releasing government documents? So the people know what their government is doing. What I don't understand is if people think it's ok for Snowden to release government documents why is not ok for others to release government documents? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. But based on the comments and ratings on this site it seems to follow as Gen Patton once said, “If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” I used to think the democrats were better at using critical thinking but I've come to realize both the democrats and the republicans aren't very different in how they fall for the propaganda and hype put out by their party or chosen media from which they get their information and never question what the read.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.