{"id":2375,"date":"2020-08-04T14:12:08","date_gmt":"2020-08-04T18:12:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lawflog.com\/?p=2375"},"modified":"2020-08-05T17:43:33","modified_gmt":"2020-08-05T21:43:33","slug":"intelligence-chief-wont-release-documents-about-spying-on-u-s-journalists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawflog.com\/?p=2375","title":{"rendered":"Intelligence chief won’t release documents about spying on U.S. journalists"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, now headed by former Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe, will not release documents about spying on U.S. journalists, according to a letter dated yesterday<\/a>. In its response to a Freedom of Information Act request<\/a>, ODNI claimed that it could not even admit or deny that the records exist because they would be classified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

In government-speak, that means, “The records exist, but we are not going to search for them because we really<\/em> don’t want to release them.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This should not surprise any followers of former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson<\/a>, who filed a federal lawsuit<\/a> alleging that government operatives hacked into her computers and electronic devices. In speeches, articles, and books, she has decried the relative passivity of U.S. journalists and media executives in the face of government hacking and spying on former Fox reporter James Rosen, herself, and others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a former journalist, I share Ms. Attkisson’s exasperation with the media’s reaction (or non-reaction) to government surveillance, although I am not surprised by it. If Richard Nixon had the means to intercept journalists’ communications in the 1970s, and journalists found out that he had done it, reporters and media execs would have been rioting in the streets. But if the Blessed Savior Obama was intercepting journalists’ phone calls and hacking their computers… well, he must have had a good reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buffoons like CNN’s Jim Acosta are lauded for “bravery” for railing against President Trump on camera, but when the same media hacks learn that their Blessed Savior Obama used an Orwellian surveillance system against journalists, they bow their heads and say nothing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It really is disgusting, almost like a rape fantasy for establishment journalists. I can imagine any number of hacks at CNN, MSNBC, or the New York Times<\/em> who would be flattered if the Obama regime deemed them worthy of an intrusion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again, none of that surprises me. What does surprise me is Mr. Ratcliffe’s stonewalling. It is illegal for the CIA to conduct operations against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. (Of course, that didn’t stop John Brennan from spying on the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee<\/a>). Likewise, it is a crime for domestic agencies like the FBI to hack into journalists’ computers without a warrant.

For those reasons alone, ODNI cannot hide behind the veil of classification. Section 1.7 of Executive Order 13526<\/a> prohibits the use of classification for purposes of concealing government wrongdoing. And can anyone tell me with a straight face that ODNI is not<\/em> trying to conceal government wrongdoing? [Continued on p. 2]<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The bigger question is why anyone in the Trump Administration would want<\/em> to keep this fiasco covered up. Is Mr. Ratcliffe trying to drain the swamp, or is he just another Republicrat trying to protect the swamp? If the latter, then President Trump should throw him overboard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my July 22, 2020 FOIA letter<\/a>, I noted Ms. Attkisson’s lawsuit, then requested the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. For each instance of surveillance described in Ms. Attkisson\u2019s complaint, I wish to view all documents, records, communications, and other tangible evidence (e.g.<\/em>, audio, video, or metadata) identifying or revealing (1) the government contractor(s), employee(s), or representative(s) who authorized, conducted, and\/or assisted the surveillance; and (2) the factual and\/or legal rationale, if any, for conducting such surveillance.  If, for example, the government sent a contractor or employee to Ms. Attkisson\u2019s home disguised as a Verizon employee, then documents reflecting that person\u2019s identity should be revealed. As used in this letter, \u201csurveillance\u201d includes, but is not limited to, efforts to wiretap or hack into the electronic devices or accounts of the targeted person or persons. This request further includes, but is not limited to, documents, records, or communications identifying (1) the government affiliates, agents, employees or contractors involved in such activities, and (2) the targets of any such activities.
    <\/li>
  2. For the period from January 20, 2009 until the present, I wish to view all documents, records, communications, and other tangible evidence (e.g.<\/em>, audio, video, or metadata) revealing or describing surveillance of any and all journalists, journalism\/media companies, and\/or executives at journalism\/media companies in the United States by any and all government employees, agents, affiliates, or contractors. [In a footnote, I noted that we are not<\/span> seeking information about surveillance of foreign journalists in the U.S.<\/em>]. For each such instance of surveillance, I wish to view all documents, records, communications, and\/or other tangible identifying or revealing (1) the government contractor(s), employee(s), or representative(s) who authorized, conducted, and\/or assisted the surveillance; and (2) the factual and\/or legal rationale, if any, for conducting the surveillance.
    <\/li>
  3. If any instances of surveillance described by the foregoing paragraphs were permitted by court order, I request the opportunity to view all such orders as well as any and all applications, affidavits, or motions seeking each respective order. [Continued on p. 2].<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    ODNI says all<\/span> of the requested information would be classified, therefore it cannot admit or deny its existence. I have already filed several FOIA lawsuits on behalf of The Transparency Project against the FBI, DOJ, CIA, etc., and it looks like I’ll soon be filing another one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Demise of David M. Hardy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In my last blog post<\/a>, I wrote about the welcome departure of FBI Section Chief David M. Hardy, who oversaw the FBI’s responses (or non-responses) to FOIA requests, and I wondered if he had been forced out. Thanks to Citizen Wells<\/a>, we may have some clues. According to a July 10, 2020 report <\/a>from DOJ’s Office of Inspector General, an FBI unit chief retired while he was under investigation for an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate. According to a July 29, 2020 report<\/a>, an FBI unit chief approved an authorization request for outside employment despite knowing that it contained misleading information, but the unit chief retired during the OIG’s investigation. The unit chiefs are not named, and it is unclear whether the two reports are discussing the same person.<\/p>\n

    Share this:<\/h3>