jamesclapper   36

Lying Bigot James Clapper Assures World The Russia Narrative He Built Is Legit
RT @caitoz: Lying Bigot James Clapper Assures World The Russia Narrative He Built Is Legit

#TrumpKnew #JamesClapper
cia  nsa  security  propaganda  russia  Russiagate  JamesClapper  TrumpKnew 
july 2018 by jstenner
Lying Bigot James Clapper Assures World The Russia Narrative He Built Is Legit > ARTICLE JULY 19, 2018 AUTHOR: CAITLIN JOHNSTONE0
4 bookmarking
Caity Johnstonewrites:
"James Clapper, who was almost certainly one of the sources for the New York Times story, was the single most essential architect of the establishment Russia narrative. He personally hand-picked the two dozen intelligence agents who made the report upon which the entire Russian cyber attack narrative has been built, which, as the late, great Robert Parry pointed out last year, is actually hand-picking the findings of the report.
“'Yet, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you ‘hand-pick’ the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion,” Parry wrote. “For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did.”
"Clapper is also a known liar of the very most egregious sort. In 2013 as National Director of Intelligence he was asked point-blank on the Senate floor about the NSA surveillance practices which would soon be exposed by Edward Snowden, and he lied about it under oath.
“'Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper was asked by Senator Ron Wyden in March of 2013.
“'No, sir,” Clapper brazenly lied. “There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.”
'This known liar, who was absolutely fundamental in constructing the establishment Russia narrative that is now being used to manufacture support for dangerous new cold war escalations including sanctions, arming Ukraine, NATO expansionism, and a Nuclear Posture Review which takes a much more aggressive posture toward Russia, also happens to be a disgusting Russophobic eugenicist pig...."
RussiaGate  JamesClapper  2016PresidentialElection  RussianHackers 
july 2018 by juandante
James Clapper's testimony one year later | PolitiFact
The challenge in discerning whether those with privileged information, particularly on matters of national security, are speaking truthfully in public is a difficult, if not impossible, task.
nsa  jamesclapper  edsnowden 
may 2018 by pavellawrence
Transcribing James Clapper | emptywheel
There are more reasons to believe Clapper’s story is bullshit. From the 2005 STELLAR WIND disclosures, which revealed the US was collecting all US-Afghanistan calls, to reports as early as 2008 that the Taliban were targeting cell providers because they recognized the security risk the networks posed, there is zero chance our adversaries in Afghanistan were unaware that the US had close to full dominance over the communications lines. There were also earlier Snowden disclosures — including Tempora, XKeyscore, and what sounded like transcripts obtained using a Stingray from a Afghan raid — that would have confirmed that view. The US is collecting close to everything from most countries where it remains at war, via a variety of overlapping means. There’s little about this disclosure in particular that added to the risk — but then, our adversaries had long been learning of our tactics and adjusting accordingly.

There is, then, the possibility it was one of these other disclosures Clapper was whining about — such as the potential Stingray one.

But if Clapper was talking about SOMALGET, and if it is true that the full-take collection got shut down, it means he and the government are blaming Snowden for long-term mismanagement of the Afghan relationship. It also may well mean that Ghani has let the US resume collection and Clapper’s public “confirmation” was designed — in addition to launching some unwarranted shots at Edward Snowden — to create the false impression the collection remains inactive.

James Clapper is a confirmed liar. Even setting aside his lies to Congress, it is his job to lie to adversaries. While that doesn’t mean journalists shouldn’t report what he says, there’s a great deal of context that should accompany such transcriptions.
JamesClapper  legal  EdwardSnowden  afghanistan  usa  nsa  government  terrorism  civilrights  humanrights  freedomfromsearchandseizure  warrant  privacy 
september 2015 by jtyost2
US spy chief James Clapper says China lead suspect in cyber hack - BBC News
China is the "leading suspect" in the massive hack of a US government agency holding the personnel records of millions of Americans, US intelligence chief James Clapper has said.
He is the highest-ranking US official to publicly implicate Beijing since news of the data breach emerged.
China always dismissed suggestions that it was behind the hacking.
The statement comes after three days of high-level talks in which China and the US agreed to a "code of conduct".
"China remains the leading suspects," said Mr Clapper at a conference in Washington DC, but "the US government continues to investigate" he added, according to his office.
JamesClapper  usa  china  legal  hacking  privacy  opm 
june 2015 by jtyost2
Testimony of the National Intelligence Director - NYTimes.com
“Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower” (editorial, Jan. 2) repeats the allegation that James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, “lied” to Congress about the collection of bulk telephony metadata. As a witness to the relevant events and a participant in them, I know that allegation is not true.

Senator Ron Wyden asked about collection of information on Americans during a lengthy and wide-ranging hearing on an entirely different subject. While his staff provided the question the day before, Mr. Clapper had not seen it. As a result, as Mr. Clapper has explained, he was surprised by the question and focused his mind on the collection of the content of Americans’ communications. In that context, his answer was and is accurate.

When we pointed out Mr. Clapper’s mistake to him, he was surprised and distressed. I spoke with a staffer for Senator Wyden several days later and told him that although Mr. Clapper recognized that his testimony was inaccurate, it could not be corrected publicly because the program involved was classified.

This incident shows the difficulty of discussing classified information in an unclassified setting and the danger of inferring a person’s state of mind from extemporaneous answers given under pressure. Indeed, it would have been irrational for Mr. Clapper to lie at this hearing, since every member of the committee was already aware of the program.
legal  JamesClapper  nsa  government  congress  ethics  crime  politics  whistleblowing  freedom  civilrights 
january 2014 by jtyost2
Why wasn't DNI (Director of National Intelligence) James Clapper investigated by a grand jury? - Gretawire
Here is what transpired on March 12, 2013 at a Senate hearing where DNI Clapper was under oath and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth:

Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” He responded, “No, sir.”[32] Wyden asked “It does not?”[32] and Clapper said “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.” [from Wikipedia]The above response by DNI Clapper is false. No one denies it is false – even Clapper himself admits now that it is false.
Is it material? A grand jury should make that decision. The US Senate and Attorney General owe it to the American people and should refer this matter to a grand jury for investigation and prosecution.
It is deeply troubling that DNI Clapper gets a pass when it comes to lying under oath before the US Senate. What message does that send to everyone else testifying under oath, whether it be the US Senate, or a trial for a kid accused of stealing an iPad?

I worry about the damage to our nation’s sense of right and wrong, of justice and fairness when people at the top are treated so vastly differently. Make no mistake about it, it undermines our democracy.
legal  crime  JamesClapper  NSA  congress  ethics  whistleblowing  EdwardSnowden  civirights  freedom  justice 
january 2014 by jtyost2
Why Does CBS Keep Asking Its Ridiculous Amnesty Question About Snowden?
During an interview with National Security Adviser Susan Rice that aired Sunday, CBS' Lesley Stahl asked Rice if the government was considering offering amnesty to Edward Snowden. Stop asking this, CBS. You're getting a lot of things wrong — and it will never, ever happen.

The conversation between Stahl and Rice aired a week after 60 Minutes' now-infamous whitewash of the National Security Agency by reporter John Miller, during which the same question was asked. Rice gave a more forceful answer to the question than did Rick Ledgett, head of the NSA's internal security review. Ledgett said the idea of amnesty was worth considering. Rice did not.

Stahl: You know, Snowden is believed to have a million-and-a-half more documents that have never been released. Would you — would the president consider granting him amnesty in exchange for him never releasing any more documents?

Rice: Well Leslie, we don't think Snowden deserves amnesty. We believe he should come back — he should be sent back, and he should have his day in court. ... The position of the United States is that he ought to come back and face justice.
The president said as much this week, as CBS itself reported. So why ask again?

But moreover: Of course the government won't do that! Why would it? This is an administration that has prosecuted more leakers than any administration in a century — combined. At The New Yorker, Amy Davidson explained why amnesty might make sense after CBS asked the question last week. That doesn't mean that the administration — which has been adamant in its defense of the NSA and its surveillance — would consider actually doing so. It would be a huge de facto admission of error on Obama's part, an admission that his revelations were important.

Davidson also points out some reasons why amnesty wouldn't be helpful to the government. For example, because Snowden probably doesn't have any documents at all at this point — and members of the media do. It's baffling that this point is still lost on CBS, even after it was pointed out repeatedly over the past week. Reporters Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras apparently have the entire document set, as, it seems, does Greenwald's former employer, The Guardian. The Washington Post's Barton Gellman has some number of them. A number of other outlets have been investigating and reporting on documents: ProPublica, The Times, and foreign papers covering per-country leaks.

But Snowden — according to Snowden — has none. In October, he described his efforts to keep the documents out of Chinese and Russian hands, including stashing them on portable hard drives until he could hand them over to Greenwald. How's Snowden supposed to cut a deal to turn over documents if he doesn't have them and there are reporters — eager for scoops — that do? What sense does that make?

Stahl's 1.5-million document figure doesn't even match the 1.7 million that Miller asked about last week. How many documents are out there isn't clear to anyone who isn't in possession of them, including the government. Earlier this month, The Timesreported that the NSA didn't know the scale of the leak, but CBS still went with 1.5 million or more in back-to-back weeks. When Ledgett was presented with the 1.7 million figure, he said simply, "I wouldn't dispute that." Of course he wouldn't! The more documents that Snowden is rumored to take, the more his actions seem reckless and inappropriate. What's a "document," anyway? A file? A page in a file? It's so vague a term as to be useless.

And then there was the predication for the question of amnesty itself. Miller asked Ledgett, "He's already said, 'If I got amnesty, I would come back.' Given the potential damage to national security, what would your thought on making a deal be?" Um, where'd he say that? The government hasn't heard it: When Stahl asked Rice on Sunday if Snowden had "proposed such an arrangement" affording him amnesty, Rice replied, "Not that I'm aware of." Did Miller even ask the administration before making that claim? Did he ask Snowden's lawyers? In a statement to BuzzFeed today, the leaker's lawyer, Ben Wizner of the ACLU, was clear: "Edward Snowden would never offer information in exchange for asylum and he has never suggested otherwise. Reports to the contrary are false."

The idea that the NSA might grant amnesty doesn't do the agency any harm, of course, at a time when its public relations efforts are faring poorly. There is also at least one good reason amnesty seems like it could be possible. When asked about Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's flat denial of NSA data collection before a Senate committee earlier this year, Rice waved the incident off as an example of someone "inadvertently [making] a false representation." In other words: misdeeds don't always result in people having to "face justice." So you never know.
JamesClapper  legal  whistleblowing  government  nsa  privacy  journalism  EdwardSnowden 
december 2013 by jtyost2
Tone-Deaf at the Listening Post
So how
persuasive is the NSA pushback against its post-Snowden image as a voracious
vacuum of information about U.S. citizens? It’s a mixed bag. On the one hand,
NSA officials were refreshingly candid in many of their assessments. For one
thing, they were upfront in acknowledging the damage that Snowden had wreaked
on agency morale and recruitment. Applications to work at the NSA are down by more
than one third, and retention rates have also declined. This is a serious
problem for an agency that, until now, has thrived because of an esprit de corps within the organization.
Traditionally, when analysts joined the NSA, they joined for life. This is
changing, and not for the better from the NSA’s perspective. Snowden has also
changed the way the NSA is doing business. Analysts have gone from being
polygraphed once every five years to once every quarter.

The NSA also
has crafted some responses to the public perception that they’re an agency run
amok. In recent years, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court has reprimanded the agency about their serial
inability to comply with court rulings. From their perspective, however, the National
Security Agency is unique because it faces oversight from all three branches of
government. Multiple officials compared the compliance obligations to a U.S.
financial firm post-Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank. While one official
acknowledged, “this agency has made mistakes,” they also pointed out that
they’ve responded robustly. They have boosted the number of compliance officers
to more than 300. Furthermore, knowledge of the FISA reprimands was only made
public because the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, declassified
the court rulings in the interest of transparency. Furthermore, because the
NSA is obligated to report even picayune or mistaken cases of noncompliance,
they come off looking worse than they actually are. “The raw numbers look
terrible,” one official acknowledged, but stressed that the percentage of
non-compliance instances is very small.

These points
have some validity — but not total validity. For example, the NSA can point to
their triple-branched oversight as much as they like, but as Ryan Lizza
and others have documented, that doesn’t mean that the oversight is terribly
effective. Furthermore, true or not, comparing a government organization to,
say, Goldman Sachs in terms of onerous regulation might not resonate terribly
well with the American public.

issue is that the NSA wants to paint itself as a dispassionate agency
responding to constituent demands. The truth is stickier. According to NSA
officials, the agency is a passive, customer-driven organization, catering to
the needs of the foreign policy agencies needing intelligence, such as the
departments of State and Defense. The thing is, the current head of the NSA is
“dual-hatted” — Alexander is director of both the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, a military command that happens to be the biggest
customer of the NSA’s services. Employees at Fort Meade work for both agencies.
Furthermore, NSA officials have lobbied the White House strongly to preserve
this dual-hatted relationship. These lobbying efforts bore
fruit last week, thereby scuppering some
of the reform proposals made by President Barack Obama’s task force on NSA reform.

The NSA’s
biggest strategic communications problem, however, is that they’ve been so
walled off from the American body politic that they have no idea when they’re
saying things that sound tone-deaf. Like expats returning from a long overseas tour,
NSA staffers don’t quite comprehend how much perceptions of the agency have
changed. The NSA stresses in its mission statement and corporate culture that
it “protects privacy rights.” Indeed, there were faded banners proclaiming that
goal in our briefing room. Of course, NSAers see this as protecting Americans
from foreign cyber-intrusions. In a post-Snowden era, however, it’s impossible
to read that statement without suppressing a laugh.

It might be
an occupational hazard, but NSA officials continue to talk about the threat
environment as if they’ve been frozen in amber since 2002. To them, the world
looks increasingly unsafe. Syria is the next Pakistan, China is augmenting its
capabilities to launch a financial war on the United States, and the next
terrorist attack on American soil is right around the corner. They could very
well be correct — except that the American public has become inured to such
warnings over the past decade, and their response has been to tell politicians
to focus on things at home and leave
the rest of the world alone. A strategy of “trust us, the world is an
unsafe place” won’t resonate now the way it did in the immediate wake of the Sept.
11 attacks.

The NSA’s
attitude toward the press is, well, disturbing. There were repeated complaints
about the ways in which recent reportage of the NSA was warped or lacking context. To be fair, this kind of griping is a
staple of officials across the entire federal government. Some of the NSA folks
went further, however. One official accused some media outlets of
“intentionally misleading the American people,” which is a pretty serious
accusation. This official also hoped that the Obama administration would crack
down on these reporters, saying, “I have some reforms for the First Amendment.”
I honestly do not know whether that last statement was a joke or not. Either
way, it’s not funny.

There is no
going back to a pre-Snowden era for the NSA. To be fair, the agency knows this.
As they interact with the outside world, they’ll move down the learning curve
and learn how to articulate their position better. It’s a position that should
certainly be heard. It might behoove the NSA to do some active listening of
its own — and not through their normal surveillance channels either. Until
the NSA appreciates the shifts in the political terrain, its officials will
continue to be trapped in a reactive posture with respect to the outside world.
That’s not good for either them or us.
nsa  government  communication  media  PublicRelations  usa  EdwardSnowden  JamesClapper  civilrights  humanrights  legal  freedom  freedomfromsearchandseizure  terrorism  security  encryption  cryptography 
december 2013 by jtyost2
Peter King Slams Paul For Attacking Clapper: 'He Disgraced His Office'
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) blasted Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Thursday for comparing National Security Agency Director James Clapper to Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked classified information about America's surveillance programs.

Paul criticized Clapper on Wednesday for "lying" to Congress about the extent of NSA's programs.

“That Clapper is lying to Congress is probably more injurious to our intelligent capabilities than anything Snowden did,” Paul said on CNN. “Clapper has damaged the credibility of the entire intelligence apparatus and I’m not sure what to believe anymore when they come to Congress.”

King, who has been making moves toward a possible 2016 presidential candidacy, slammed Paul, another potential candidate, on Thursday.

"He disgraced his office and he owes Gen. Clapper an apology immediately," he said on CNN. "The fact is Gen. Clapper was put in an impossible position because the senator who asked the question had already gotten the information in a classified setting. He knew Gen. Clapper could not give the full answer because it would let our enemies know what we were doing. The question was wrong."

Asked about a letter other Republican lawmakers have signed calling for Clapper's resignation, King was even more indignant.

"That comes from the isolationist wing of the party," he said. "That goes back to the days of Charles Lindbergh. These are people who are apologizing for America. To me, that is not the Republican tradition, that is not the tradition of Ronald Reagan. It's the tradition of Charles Lindbergh and the radical left wing Democrats of the 1960s."
republicans  politics  RandPaul  senate  peterking  nsa  jamesclapper  legal  EdwardSnowden  whistleblowing  civilrights  humanrights 
december 2013 by jtyost2
Patriot Act author: Obama’s intel czar should be prosecuted | TheHill
Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the original author of the Patriot Act, says Director of National Intelligence James Clapper should be prosecuted for lying to Congress.

"Lying to Congress is a federal offense, and Clapper ought to be fired and prosecuted for it," the Wisconsin Republican said in an interview with The Hill.
jamesclapper  dni  nsa 
december 2013 by cboyack
BBC News - US intelligence chief Clapper defends spying policy
The head of US intelligence has told lawmakers that discerning foreign leaders' intentions is a key goal of the nation's spying operations.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said such efforts were a "top tenet" of US intelligence policy.

But he told the intelligence panel of the House of Representatives the US did not "indiscriminately" spy on nations.

Mr Clapper was reacting to a growing international row over reports the US eavesdropped on foreign allies.

"Leadership intentions is kind of a basic tenet of what we collect and analyse," Mr Clapper said, adding that foreign allies spy on US officials and intelligence agencies as a matter of routine.

He said that what he called the torrent of disclosures about American surveillance had been extremely damaging and that he anticipated more.
jamesclapper  legal  nsa  government  surveillance  privacy  civilrights  usa  senate  congress  HouseOfRepresentatives  spain  KeithAlexander  italy 
october 2013 by jtyost2

related tags

2010  2016presidentialelection  9/11  administration  afghanistan  ashkansoltani  barackobama  bartongellman  business  china  cia  civilrights  civirights  cnn  communication  congress  crime  cryptography  diplomacy  directorofnationalintelligence  dni  donaldtrump  doylemcmanus  economics  edsnowden  edwardsnowden  encryption  ethics  fisa  freedom  freedomfromsearchandseizure  government  governmentfailure  hacking  houseofrepresentatives  humanrights  intelligence  italy  jamescomey  johnbrennan  journalism  julietate  july  justice  keithalexander  legal  legislation  leonpanetta  libya  media  mediabias  muammargaddafi  nationalgeospacial-intelligenceagency  nato  notes  nsa  obama  obamaadministration  opm  peterking  politics  prism  privacy  propaganda  publicrelations  rachelmaddow  randpaul  rel:02006  republicans  robertgates  robertlitt  robertmueller  russia  russiagate  russianhackers  satellite  search  secretaryofdefense  security  senate  shutdown  spain  spy  src:associatedpress  summer  surveillance  terrorism  trumpknew  usa  warrant  washpost  whistleblowing  wiretapping 

Copy this bookmark: