House Intel Chairman, Mike Rogers implies Snowden part of Russian conspiracy
Did you ever try to win an argument with your older brother by using “I promise I’m right!?”
Today, House Intelligence Chairman, Mike Rogers (R-MI) doubled down again on his accusation that Edward Snowden is willingly helping the Russian government. Just for background, Rep. Rogers is the guy who famously said this, “You can’t have your privacy violated if you don’t know your privacy is violated.”
Listening to his arguments–with statements like, “I see all of the evidence, “Everyone agrees,” and this humdinger, “No intelligence official does not believe Edward Snowden is not under the influence of Russian intelligence…”–I’m filled with an overwhelming sense of nostalgia…
“Mom said I could!…I promise I’m right!” O, to be seven again! WATCH:
Did you catch the assertion that Snowden is still leaking information as he chooses in a way that is helping the Russians expand their territory? This is simply false. Whatever you think of Glenn Greenwald, it’s hard to dispute the following points he posted today regarding this accusation over at The Intercept:
(1) Edward Snowden has not leaked a single document to any journalist since he left Hong Kong in June: 9 months ago. Back then, he provided a set of documents to several journalists and asked that we make careful judgments about what should and should not be published based on several criteria. He has played no role since then in deciding which documents are or are not reported. Those decisions are made entirely by media outlets that are in possession of those documents. Thus, calling a new NSA story “Snowden’s latest leak” or asking “why would Snowden decide to publish this now?” – as though he’s doling out documents one by one or deciding which documents should be published – is misleading in the extreme: those decisions are made exclusively by the journalists and editors of those news outlets.
(2) Publication of an NSA story constitutes an editorial judgment by the media outlet that the information should be public. By publishing yesterday’s Huawei story, the NYT obviously made the editorial judgment that these revelations are both newsworthy and in the public interest, should be disclosed, and will not unduly harm “American national security.” For reasons I explain below, I agree with that choice. But if you disagree – if you want to argue that this (or any other) NSA story is reckless, dangerous, treasonous or whatever – then have the courage to take it up with the people who reached the opposite conclusion: in this case, the editors and reporters of the NYT (indeed, as former DOJ official Jack Goldsmith observed, the NYT‘s Huawei story was “based on leaks other than the Snowden documents”). In most other cases where critics claim reckless disclosures, the decision to publish was made by the Washington Post. The judgment to which you’re objecting – that this information should be made public – was one made by those newspapers, not by Edward Snowden.
(3) Snowden has made repeatedly clear that he did not want all of the documents he provided to be published. When Snowden furnished documents to the journalists with whom he chose to work (which, just by the way, expressly did not include the NYT), he made clear that he did not believe all of those materials should be published. Obviously, if he wanted all of those documents published, he could have and would have just uploaded them to the internet himself; he wouldn’t have needed to work with journalists.