CIA Admits Hacking Senate Computers After Months of Denials

senate_large_seal200px-CIA.svgIn the same week as the State Department report endorsing findings that the CIA lied to Congress and brutalized suspects, the CIA is now admitting that its recent denials of hacking Senate computers was also false. Once again, however, there is not even a suggestion of discipline, let alone criminal charges, for CIA officials who lied to Congress (or allowed others to lie) and hacked into congressional computers.

CIA Director John Brennan used the type of Orwellian speech that we have come to expect when discussing CIA abuses. He admitted that employees “acted in a manner inconsistent with the common understanding” between the agency and the Senate. That “inconsistency” just happened to involve hacking into computers during an investigation of the CIA itself on Bush-era interrogation practices.

Keep in mind that it was Brennan who just a few months ago mocked the allegations and said “As far as the allegations of the CIA hacking into Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. … That’s beyond the scope of reason.” Now one of two possibilities exist. First, Brennan lied to the Senate and then lied to the American people. Second, high-ranking CIA officials lied to Brennan and then sat back as he lied to the Senate and the public. I am not sure which is worse but both would seem a logical basis for a criminal investigation.

The Obama Administration last year struggled with questions of why it has blocked any investigation, let alone prosecution, of James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, who previously acknowledged lying before the Senate. Not only has Clapper not been fired, but Obama has asked him to help oversee the “reforms” of the very abusive program that he helped run and then lied about to Congress. It is part of America’s Animal Farm where government officials can commit crimes with impunity while pursuing others like Snowden for arrest. Yet, the questions persist about Clapper so the Administration sent forth National Intelligence general counsel Robert Litt, who promptly made it far worse.

You may recall that when Clapper appeared before the Senate, he was asked directly, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.”

We now know that was a lie. Later, Clapper admitted to giving a false answer to Congress but explained that his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make. Yet, of course, that would still make it an untrue statement — which most people call a lie and lawyers call perjury. Indeed, when Roger Clemens was prosecuted for untrue statements before Congress, he was not told of the option to tell the least untrue statement on steroid use.

The scandal followed the Clapper false testimony but the CIA did not hesitate to deny the allegation in the face of bipartisan criticism. Brennan reportedly apologized in private but of course such admissions are not made in public –just between members of what appears a ruling elite in this country. In a truly Orwellian twist, Dianne Feinstein (who has not commented on the admission) issued a statement . . . thanking the Administration for not opening a formal investigation of her staff. That’s right. Feinstein was thankful that the Administration that hacked Senate computers and lied to its members did not proceed to investigate the victims of the hacking. That passes for progress today in our new massive national security system.

So let just keep score. We have the recent admission of Clapper lying to Congress in testimony. He is allowed to keep his position and even put on the board reviewing the very program that he lied about. We have the CIA lying to Congress about torture and destroying evidence. No one is charged and the man who ordered the destruction is allowed to retire with full honors. We have the hacking of Senate computers and lies to Congress by CIA officials. The Senate then thanks the Administration for not investigating the victims and no investigation is ordered of the CIA officials.

It appears, as explained by the pig Squealer in Animal Farm, “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Source: National Journal

170 thoughts on “CIA Admits Hacking Senate Computers After Months of Denials”

  1. Aw, this was a very nice post. Taking the time and actual effort to create a very good article… but what can I say… I procrastinate a lot and never manage to
    get anything done.

  2. Hey just wanted to give you a brief heads up and let you know a few
    of the pictures aren’t loading correctly. I’m not sure why
    but I think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two
    different internet browsers and both show the same results.

  3. Greate pieces. Keep posting such kind of information on your blog.
    Im really imprewssed by yur blog.
    Hi there, You have done a fantastic job.
    I will definitely digg it and in my view suggest to my friends.

    I’msure they’ll be benefited from this site.

  4. I am finding the comments on this issue very informative and interesting. Many of you are beginning to see the present administration in a whole new light–for the first time. It seems to me that Brennan and others should be prosecuted. Nixon was impeached for less than what’s going on in this administration. Please join me and pray for our country.

  5. Paul C. Shulte

    Under the 14th Amendment, there is a distinction when dealing with all persons on U.S. Territory and U.S. citizens have some protections when travelling abroad.

    Habeas Corpus is only for extreme situations and temporary. We have been at war for over a decade.

    Americans do have rules when going war.

  6. Re: Paul C. Shulte

    The actual finding by the ACLU for a two year period after 9/11 was actually less than 1% (based on the government’s own records) but to be factually correct I was conservative and used less than 10%.

    A reasonable search in my view should net at least a 50% conviction rate, not 1% or less.

    This statistic was using “terrorism laws” for “non-terrorism” cases. Any real “constitutional conservative” would not make terrorism laws constitutional.

    Terrorism laws are being used to circumvent the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 14th Amendments for “non-terrorism” cases.

    As for the excessive secrecy, we can’t have a democracy if the voters can’t self-govern. One example is it’s classified whether a detainee had a hamburger or a turkey sandwich for lunch – it’s totally outrageous how ridiculous the secrecy is.

    1. Ros – Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. FDR would have been hung for war crimes using the same criteria as used against the Germans at Nuremburg. When it comes to war, I am all for winning. You do not win with one hand tied behind your back.

  7. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – now you are just being a silly billy again.
    Repeats the one trick pony.

  8. Paul C. Schulte

    AY – I would agree on some of your claims but military intervention for pre-emption is considered viable as a defense. And the goal of every country is survive and protect itself and its citizens. Sometimes that means making deals with the devil.
    Your foreign policy thinking eh?

    I don’t care.

    In other words, a society does not ever die ‘from natural causes’, but always dies from suicide or murder — and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown.” – A Study of History, by Arnold J. Toynbee

    I care about what historians say.

    No devil deals, just “suicide” or “omnicide” in more recent terms.

    Suicide is necessary only to deranged minds, which the military is having a devil of a time with at the moment.

    1. Dredd – you do realize I do not take you seriously. You rarely advance a coherent argument. And you spend a great deal of energy attacking me personally. I see you as light entertainment as I am multi-tasking.

  9. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – if you do not care what I think I think why do you spend so much time with using ad hominem attacks against me?
    Any one trick pony falsehood is not what I call “thinking.”

    “I don’t care what you think” does not ipso facto mean that you are thinking.

    It means that if you change from a reclusive one trick pony loop a la deja vu all over again, I will continue to not care what you think.

  10. Anonymously Yours

    … Are these computer generated responses, as you suggested to Dredd?
    The two trick pony version will be released when Romney becomes Bush III.

Comments are closed.