CIA hacked Senate computers, spied on Senators and staff, furious Feinstein alleges

In an explosive statement today, US Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, publicly accused the CIA of illegally hacking into US Senate computers and spying on the private communications of Senators and staff.

The charge is a big deal, especially coming from a Democrat, who one might expect to be somewhat friendly to the administration, and the chair of the Intelligence committee, who would best know about intelligence matters affecting the Senate.  Also, Feinstein has not been terribly concerned about the NSA spying on Americans, which led CNN’s Jake Tapper to just comment:

“She’s cool with the NSA snooping on you, but the CIA better not be spying on her.”

Feinstein says CIA director John Brennan informed the committee that the CIA had basically hacked into the Senate Intelligence Committees computers, without the knowledge or consent of the Senate, in order to see if the staff had documents it wasn’t cleared to have.

In conducting its spying on the Senate, Feinstein says CIA employees went through the committee’s internal shared computer network, meaning, their own private communications amongst themselves. In other worse, the CIA was spying on US Senators’ private communications, and those of their staffs.

Here’s what Feinstein said, see video below:

Without prior notification or approval, CIA personnel had conducted a search, that was John Brennan’s word, of the committee computers at the off-site facility. This search involved not only a search of documents provided the committee by the CIA, but also a search of the stand-alone and walled-off committee network drive, containing the committee’s own internal work product and communications.

So the CIA hacked the US Senate, and then browsed through private internal communications involving US Senators.

The LA Times points out that the CIA director didn’t exactly deny Feinstein’s allegations:

Brennan, at a previously scheduled event a couple of hours after Feinstein made her statement, offered carefully worded remarks that did not dispute the actions Feinstein said had taken place, but did deny that they constituted “spying” on the Senate.

(I’m told that in order to better see my Facebook posts in your feed, you need to “follow” me.)

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

87 Responses to “CIA hacked Senate computers, spied on Senators and staff, furious Feinstein alleges”

  1. Badgerite says:

    Don’t mention it.

  2. Dimoper says:

    Wonderful rech.Est meaning in words …
    Под заказ мебель в Киеве, Украине

  3. barada says:

    Snowden just looks better and better all the time, IMO.

  4. barada says:

    Feinstein is a hypocrite. She was FOR spying as long as it wasn’t on her.
    Now the Pandora’s box is opened.

  5. Silver_Witch says:

    Thanks for the Lecture ….

  6. Badgerite says:

    The Department of Justice. In fact Brennan filed a complaint with the DOJ about a classified document being removed without the proper authorization. That is what set Feinstein off.
    Brennan fired the first shot, here.

  7. Badgerite says:

    This isn’t really about surveillance. This is about perceived obstruction of a Senate investigation. Her staff allege documents that they had been searching had disappeared.
    They copied off the document in question because they perceived a threat of it also being disappeared. But— This was a CIA computer used by her staff at the CIA. Of course they are going to monitor it. But I think the back story is far more complicated.
    It sounds as if there had been a pattern of obstruction in that documents that the committee staff had been searching would disappear. Their investigation was being sniped at by the CIA behind the curtain. And then Brennan filed a complaint with the DOJ alleging classified files had been taken without seeking or acquiring the required permission which would mean any evidence that was found might be subject to being disappeared.
    This isn’t about the stupid computer. There is much more going on here.

  8. mereside says:

    It seems that it is ok to spy on everyone except Senators. To feign interest in something after it’s been an open secret since before Snowdon’s revelations seems a little disingenuous.

  9. Badgerite says:

    Oh yeah. Says who?

  10. Badgerite says:

    Oh, I can guarantee that is going on. But not by the NSA. Check out 60 Minutes episode last weekend about the information compiled and sold about you on the open market.
    To listen to your calls, the NSA would need an individualized warrant once they are aware that you are an American citizen. If you are not an American citizen, it is unlikely that the NSA would listen to your calls unless your were talking to someone who talks regularly with some known or suspected terrorist. Then, maybe.
    If you are an American citizen, whatever information has been collected via digital communications of any kind must be anonymized and minimized. If that information provides probable cause to get an individualized warrant, then your actual phone call or email may be accessed.
    1984 wasn’t about cameras. It was about laws and power.
    It focused on the illegality of a relationship. And the states power to destroy that relationship. Sound familiar. You can find that right now in Russia or Uganda.
    Cameras not required.

  11. perljammer says:

    Exactly. There are people who are so lathered up over the idea of punishing the CIA for the excesses of the Bush administration, that they lose sight of the bigger picture. As bad as the abuses might have been, as a threat to our liberties I think they pale in comparison to the cumulative domestic effects of the growing security state.

  12. Silver_Witch says:

    I don’t think she is a hypocrite – I think she is honestly shocked that they would “spy” on her….after all she is not one of us, now is she.

  13. Silver_Witch says:

    And bringing conservatism to the forefront? That is scary – hoping you mean burying them to bring forward more freedom – but I suspect that is not what you mean.

  14. Silver_Witch says:

    Not into suing people for their beliefs – so feel free to believe as you will. I on the other hand do care that people listen to my calls, view my emails and might be tracking this post – with the outcome someday being labeled a subversive by the country I have served, loved and supported. I see what started as a simply “protect the Homeland” (just the term Homeland frightens the shit out of me) turning into 1984 with cameras and tracking everywhere.

  15. Silver_Witch says:

    Just like the monster the Republicans have unleased with their catering to extreme views has come home to devour them – I am afraid American will see the same result here at home…they wanted to be protected from terrorists – now they will see they might just be the “terrorists”.

  16. perljammer says:

    The problem Feinstein has with the CIA is largely of her own making, and all of us are paying the price.

    “Those openly called on to flout international law in the interests of a
    higher good do not then suddenly submit that goal to domestic law once
    they’ve gone through customs. Once the state has deliberately created
    space for power to be exercised without accountability those who occupy
    that space will protect it against enemies domestic and foreign. When
    your war is global and unending it inevitably comes home and keeps
    going. The monster the US has unleashed on the rest of the world is
    steadily devouring its own.”

  17. perljammer says:

    Oh, I understand, all right. The CIA stands accused of interfering with a Senate investigation. No denying, this is a serious issue, and definitely worthy of investigation. But Feinstein is yelling about violation of the 4th Amendment, despite her history of thinking that 4th Amendment violations are just fine when it comes to the public at large. That is the hypocrisy, and that is where “some pigs are more equal than others” applies.

  18. perljammer says:

    Sorry, not Executive Order, but executive privilege, which is a bit shakier as a foundation for denying access. Here’s the claim:

    “Mr. Brennan, in a January letter to Ms. Feinstein that a government
    official who did not want to be identified released on Tuesday, said the
    committee had not been entitled to the internal review because it
    contained “sensitive, deliberative, pre-decisional C.I.A. material”— and
    therefore was protected under executive privilege considerations”

  19. Indigo says:

    I’m reminded of a retort I heard a Buddhist monk once make to the expression “Karma’s a bitch!” The monk smiled and mildly added, “Only if you are . . . ”
    (In DiFi’s case, of course, the term seems to apply.)

  20. Max_1 says:

    But I can throw you farther than the entire DoJ…

  21. Max_1 says:

    Too bad she didn’t read the full user agreement before signing off on that set of laptops…
    I jest because that is the same reasoning her Committee has given for Americans being spied upon.

  22. Max_1 says:

    Ask your Congressman to explain that to you…

    DiFi is a Senator. Ask your House Rep why Justice is delayed. Impeachment and Judicial matters concerning appointed Cabinet members of the Administration serve at the Administration bequest. The House Judiciary holds the reigns over the Administration.

    Employ your House Rep to represent you. Double down if you voted for them by signaling they don’t have your confidence. Insist that they take action to remove key players, Brennan and Clapper via Impeachment.

    The Senate can not readily remove either Brennan or Clapper without the backing of the House and the strongest backing are articles of Impeachment.

    Imagine the face DiFi will save (haha a face lift joke) should she Impeach her nemesis in the process OF this entire process… Otherwise, she comes off looking rather complicit without Judicial settlement.

  23. Max_1 says:

    I’m sorry Senator…
    … Are you to have me believe the Commander in Chief isn’t aware of what his military are doing on his watch?
    Who did Brennan report to on this matter?

  24. Max_1 says:

    “Out damn spot, OUT!”
    ~ Lady McFeinstein

    Or should I say…

    “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
    ~ Senator Diane Renault

  25. Max_1 says:

    Spying under the Obama Administration happened on DiFi’s watch.
    It couldn’t have happened any other way…

  26. Max_1 says:

    I’ve been calling my House Rep for two weeks now!

    I reminded him that he enjoined Congressman Kuchinich in Articles of Impeachment for spying under the Bush Administration. I reminded him that his Oath of Office compels him to defend the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments and his Oath of Office was to the people who elected him and that I, his constituent, am pleading that until he can faithfully defend and show support for the Constitution, I have no reason to reelect him.

    Today I called him in disgust at hearing Diane Feinstein complain about being spied upon by the CIA while my House Representative does nothing to stop the abuses around spying on Americans, in general.

    . ~ ~ V O T E ~ ~

  27. Bill_Perdue says:

    More Crocodile tears from Democrats now that the chickens are coming home to roost.

    iFeinstein was the original Democratic cosponsor of a bill to extend the USA PATRIOT Act. In a December 2005 statement, Senator Feinstein stated, “I believe the Patriot Act is vital to the protection of the American people.”: (Wiki)

    She voted for NDAA. ( )

    Feinstein promotes bill to strengthen NSA’s hand on warrantless searches – Fisa Improvements Act, advanced as surveillance reform, would make permanent loophole known as ‘backdoor search provision'”

    What a disgusting hypocrite.

  28. 2karmanot says:

    Fair enough.

  29. Badgerite says:

    Oh please. Nobody cares if you order a pizza. The NSA least of all.
    But, if the information pliny provided is accurate, then her complaints are not warranted. If what her staff did was take documents off site ( CIA building = site) without the proper clearance that they had agreed to and Brennan reported that to the DOJ, then this is not a clear cut case of anything. Yes I trust the DOJ to sort it out legally. Sue me.

  30. Badgerite says:

    Well, I trust them more than you. Let’s put it that way.

  31. Badgerite says:

    A CIA internal report that proves the CIA was being dishonest in its statements about the committee’s work? Dishonest to whom? This must have a hell of a back story.
    So the CIA was verbally sniping at her committee and her staff took umbrage and smuggled out some documents to show that the CIA was being dishonest in their sniper attacks? Hmmmm. Not exactly the way it was first reported, is it?

  32. Badgerite says:

    Harsh! And worse, dishonest implication.

  33. Badgerite says:

    We’ll see. Who’s Executive Order? Do you have a link?

  34. Badgerite says:

    See Myrddin Witt’s comment. He seemed to get what you did not.

  35. Badgerite says:

    Exactly. This has nothing really to do with the NSA. This has to do with allegations of lying by members of the CIA about the interrogations practices of the Bush years. If you will recall there were filmed interrogations that disappeared, etc. So that is what Feinstein was investigating. There were prisoners who ended up dead.
    Brennan reported to the DOJ that Feinstein’s staff had unlawfully accessed some CIA information. Feinstein clearly sees that action as an attempt to intimidate and shut down her investigation. Whether it is or not, who knows?
    Brennan denies it and seems to imply that if he has done anything the DOJ find improper he will offer his resignation.

  36. RepPress says:

    Here is a link to her whole speech (plus example of a victim of CIA):

  37. BlueIdaho says:

    The woman. Is evil. I hope they found some good sh*t on her. She has thrown every gay and lesbian under the bus since her power grabbing days as a city supervisor in SF.

  38. BeccaM says:

    If all the CIA wanted was information about the expected report, all they needed to do was to look.

    But Feinstein’s staffers reported not only were their loaned computers hacked into, but information — files, notes, emails, and documents — had been deleted.

    That to me suggests a motive of cover-up.

  39. MyrddinWilt says:

    I don’t think this is electoral, it is about burying neo-conservatism as an ideology

  40. MyrddinWilt says:

    Thats one theory but I suspect that the problem for the CIA is that the staffers were probably allowed the docs by right and what the CIA was trying to do was work out whether they were going to recommend prosecutions.

  41. cole3244 says:

    feinstein and other cons are ok with nsa spying on america but not on the elites like themselves.

    fascism is alive and well on both sides of the a isle.

  42. MyrddinWilt says:

    Yes, there is actually a difference.

    The problem with the NSA spying on everyone is that puts a lot of power in the hands of people who really can’t be trusted with it. They have a tendency to panic when they get scared, the response to 9/11 was six years of blind panic by the President and general staff. They have a tendency to believe in peculiar political ideologies and they have a tendency to get really scared shitless when things don’t appear to be under control.

    The problem with the spying is the potential for abuse. This is actual abuse.

    The CIA is being investigated for war crimes including torture and murder. There has been interference in the investigation. How much more serious could it be?

  43. BeccaM says:

    My guess?

    CIA Underling: Feinstein’s staffers have left for the day. The SCIF is locked up.

    CIA Supervisor: Thank god. Analyst Smith just reported we accidentally included several hundred deeply incriminating documents in that dump. Stuff that could see us all dropped into a very deep hole if our torture practices ever came to light.

    Underling: Sir, the President said we don’t tor–

    Supervisor: Belay that bullshit. Of course we did. And we still do. C, I, and A are becoming the most feared three letters in the entire world. Now get into that SCIF, log into those loaner laptops and wipe the data.

    Underling: But what if the staffers notice? Won’t the Senator be quite irate?

    Supervisor: An ineffectual security-loving Senator’s feckless ire or loud public demands for war crimes and crimes-against-humanity trials, followed by genuinely strict Congressional oversight for all the shenanigans we’ve been able to get away with for the last couple of decades — which would you prefer?

  44. perljammer says:

    Yes, indeed. Some pigs are more equal than others. George Orwell would be so pleased.

  45. perljammer says:

    Yes, she was, and still is. The document in question appears to be protected by Executive Order (or so the CIA claims); if so, the Senate Intelligence Committee is not privileged to examine it. You may be of the opinion that the Committee should be able to see it regardless, but that isn’t the way the law works.

  46. Silver_Witch says:

    Saddly MyrddinWilt – you are probably correct – I am sure this is some “thing” that will make all “things” small and scary and put the Dems back in. I thought the same thing myself.

  47. masaccio68 says:

    DiFi knows she isn’t a terrorist. She knows the rest of us are terrorists. So naturally she cares about getting spied on herself, but is delighted that NSA is spying on the rest of us.

  48. Indigo says:

    The indignation is appropriate enough, it’s just that the source, DF, isn’t really first in line to be indignant about any unscrupulous happenings anymore.

  49. 2karmanot says:

    The DOJ is where elephants and lost umbrellas go to die.

  50. MyrddinWilt says:

    I have no sympathy either. But this is still a BFD. Feinstein is the number one shill for the military intelligence services on the Hill. If she is on the warpath against them it is a very very big deal.

    Which is why I wonder if it is really what is going on.

    Obama has sat on the torture issue for six years now. On his first inaugural the US was losing two wars, he needed the CIA. Now he doesn’t need them quite so bad. Meanwhile the number of Republicans who have a vested interest in protecting the Bushie crew has sharply declined.

    But he can’t make a reversal without giving a reason or it will look like an opportunistic political attack. So he has to be pushed into it.

    Oh this could get interesting.

  51. 2karmanot says:

    DiFi’s good at her job, that’s why nothing ever happens—-until the worm turned that is.

  52. 2karmanot says:

    Oh, would I ever like to see DiFi’s silken butt in the slammer if only for an hour.

  53. 2karmanot says:


  54. 2karmanot says:

    Indeed. We must remember however that what is Chutzpah for we mere mortals is high dungeon for the DiFi. She made her career off the assassination deaths of Milk and Mascone and never looked back.

  55. Silver_Witch says:

    Thanks 2karmanot – I will be playing here again tomorrow….

    You are completely correct – neither Senator Feinstein nor the DOJ give a hoot about any crimes the powerful commit…they only want to dirt to use against people next time they need a vote.

  56. 2karmanot says:

    Until now DiFi never met a ‘NO’ she couldn’t support.

  57. 2karmanot says:

    Brava. Anyone who truly believes that the DOJ gives a tiddlywink about power crimes is well—naive or sublimely cynical.

  58. Silver_Witch says:

    Sing it Sister!!!! I always get a little pleasure when Karma raises its very large and shaggy head!

  59. 2karmanot says:

    The DOJ trustworthy? Oh, please. Were are all those banker/Wall Street indictments?

  60. Silver_Witch says:

    Apparently the Senator has stepped into a large pile of doggie poop and it is now stuck all over her shoe. Hard to say she should not be spied on when she believes we should all surrender our rights to privacy for the sake of security and safety from terrorists…..

  61. Silver_Witch says:

    Oh no…she wouldn’t do that – you know how she feels about Leakers, er Whistle Blowers – er…

    Shoe Bombers – we must protect the people from the terrorists!!!

  62. 2karmanot says:

    Amen to that!!

  63. Silver_Witch says:

    I sent the honorable Senator a note today – and let her know what my pappa used to say, the old bastard!

    What is good for the Goose, is good for the Gander.

    Welcome Senator Gander to the world of being spied upon, Sincerely The Goose!

  64. Silver_Witch says:

    Youareright!!!! Beyond right.

  65. Silver_Witch says:

    Actually – NO, constituents ordering a pizza are as entitled to privacy and freedom as the Senator when she is investigating the acts of the Bush Administration (and since they have been “investigating” for some time with no result – I would say they were not really going to do anything about the illegality of the Bush criminals).

    You see when only one group of citizens are entitled to privacy you start a real boondoggle. Where do we draw the line, which Citizen may be free from being watched and which not…to what level.

    As an American Citizen I have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. I have the right to board a plane without have to take off my shoes, be scanned, prodded or poked. For safety’s sake – I am guilty regardless of my actions? No.

    For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. Nelson Mandela

  66. basenjilover says:

    Oh that closeted Republican corporatist… feigning outrage. Karma’s a b****, DiFi.

  67. Silver_Witch says:

    Get up with very fleas – in this case the very fleas you thought were great for other dogs!!!!

  68. Silver_Witch says:

    I have no sympathy for the Senator, she believes for the safety of the country all Citizens must surrender their rights and understand that we can not enjoy the right of privacy for the sake of safety – just last month she touted the NSA and its rules. YET when the agencies come sniffing at her door – the Senator is outraged.

    So now she can enjoy like like us regular folks – with emails available to EVERYONE and no sense of privacy or freedom. Welcome to your American Senator Feinstein – it is what you wanted – it is now what you have.

    This is the thing the 1% does not understand – when you allow people to spy on one group – pretty soon they are spying on everyone. It is great while you are the “group” in power – but my how that pendulum swings.

  69. pliny says:

    If you read the transcript of Feinstein’s statement, you’ll find that she claims the committee printed out a CIA internal report that proves CIA was being dishonest in it’s statements about the committee’s work. They then smuggled it out and secured it in the Senate Office Building (I always forget she’s a Senator and not a Rep)

    The committee had agreed *not* to remove any documents from the CIA facility without clearing them through CIA. She glosses over that bit in her statement and makes a very familiar sounding set of reassurances about how carefully they handled the document.

    That said, the CIA considers the document to be classified. The committee decided to Clancy it up by sneaking it out rather than go through channels. If anybody other than Senators and their staff had pulled this, they’d be in a prison cell or Sheremetyevo by now.

  70. Badgerite says:

    I doubt that the Senator would ‘lock up’ whatever in the House safe but,,,,,
    The Senator was conducting an investigation into interrogation practices during the Bush Administration. The CIA provided a computer for her staff to access CIA materials with section walled off exclusively for the use of her staff. The CIA monitored the use of that computer and did so by hacking into the walled off section reserved for use by her staff. Brennan then reported to the DOJ that her staff had viewed documents they were not authorized to. Feinstein blew and held a press conference.
    I don’t know what the hell you are talking about. But according to news reports, if you actually read them, that is what this is about. It isn’t even about ‘Senate Computers’ being hacked. It was a CIA computer provided to Feinstein’s staff to view CIA materials. So. I’m on Feinstein’s side. I think.
    But I don’t know enough, yet.

  71. Badgerite says:

    Not quite. Diane Feinstein’s office was conducting an investigation into CIA interrogation practices during the Bush Administration. To that end her office was PROVIDED WITH A COMPUTER FROM THE CIA to access information relevant to that investigation. It was a CIA computer but the Senator’s staff had a section walled off for their own use. The CIA was monitoring the Senate staff’s use of the CIA computer. They did so by hacking into the walled off part reserved for the Senator’s staff. The CIA (Brennan ) alleges that the Senator’s staff were viewing material they were not authorized to and reported this to the DOJ. This is how Feinstein found out about the CIA hacking into her staff’s walled off section. She blew up and went public. So. Not quite as portrayed by the headlines. It just looks to me like both are seeking to protect their staff and their prerogatives. Who’s staff deserves protection, I couldn’t say. Don’t know enough. Yeah? That is why we have a DOJ. I trust them to get to the bottom of this and sort it out.

  72. pliny says:

    Would those be the laws that the committee broke by straight-up stealing the hard copy version of the internal report to lock up in the House safe? Somehow I doubt she’ll end up in a cell next to John Kiriakou.

    Don’t get me wrong, I have no doubt any copies kept at the CIA location would have disappeared. Without that crime being committed, they’d have no way to back up their allegations that CIA was being dishonest in their responses.

    Even for Feinstein, this a new level of Chutzpah.

  73. Hue-Man says:

    What do you expect when you let the spooks lie to your face without any repercussions? They don’t have to bother to parse their words because they know that bald-faced lies will not be punished. “No, we didn’t spy on the Senator or any Senate staff.” Lie down with dogs…

  74. Badgerite says:

    Most of us were not involved in conducting an investigation of the CIA. She was.

  75. Badgerite says:

    She was not sympathetic to interference with a Congressional investigation.
    She was sympathetic only so long as they abide by the law. It sounds to me like Brennan shot first though. This was an investigation conducted by Feinstein’s office into interrogation practices during the Bush years by CIA personnel. It involved using a CIA computer provided to them where staff could view documents relevant to that investigation. My understanding is that Brennan had informed the DOJ that Feinstein’s staff had viewed some documents they were not supposed to or something like that.
    So he’s accusing her and she’s accusing him and this should be interesting.
    I’m sure Brennan sees himself as protecting his personnel. Feinstein, likewise.
    This is in the lap of the DOJ now. And that seems appropriate to me.

  76. Badgerite says:

    I suspect the DOJ is already involved. That’s what she is going to do about it.
    When laws are ACTUALLY broken, and you can prove it, there are remedies.

  77. Badgerite says:

    Bullshit. Constituents ordering a pizza and a US Senator performing an investigation into illegal practices ( see enhanced interrogations or more – I suspect she is looking into the more part) carried on during the Bush administration are sort of on a different footing. This was a knowing violation of law. Not a minimal invasion of privacy while doing what the law charges them to do.
    The law does not charge them to or even allow the CIA to mess with a Congressional investigation.

  78. caphillprof says:

    You should be happy that this has happened.

  79. Badgerite says:

    Well, yes it does involve spying on a Senator and their staff and also would be highly ILLEGAL!
    Christ. Since the committee was investigating certain questionable interrogation practices engaged in during the Bush years on that computer I suspect certain people in the CIA were looking to contain some kind of information that is not good and implicates certain people they do not want implicated. There is no excuse. This has to be investigated by the DOJ.

  80. The_Fixer says:

    All for Me, and none for thee.

    Privacy, that is. Funny how she’s complaining now, rather when her constituents were getting spied on.

    She’d be a lot more credible if she complained then, and stopped it. See, Diane, this is what happens when you don’t stand up for your constituents. They come for you next.

  81. It’s all fun and games until a Senator gets hacked.

  82. usagi says:

    And what do you think you’re going to DO about it, DiFi? You’re only a senator. You think that you have any power with the CIA (or the NSA)? Ha!
    I don’t know what she’s so worked up about. If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about, amirite?

  83. Naja pallida says:

    And? Feinstein and crew didn’t do anything about warrantless wiretapping during the Bush era. They haven’t done anything about NSA spying on everyone now. This situation with “intelligence” agencies thinking they have the right to spy on whoever they want, whenever they want, for any or no reason, is entirely the fault of Congress, and people like Feinstein being so bad at their job.

  84. Yes that too. Her hypocrisy means it’s all the more big of a deal, as she was sympathetic to such practices.

  85. perljammer says:

    Maybe. Moreover, she and her colleagues and their staffers may have committed a security violation just by accessing/reading/copying the document.

    Other accounts I have read say that the computers were not “Senate computers”, but computers set up by the CIA for use by the Senators and their staff. In the parlance of network security, that might be called a “honeypot”.

    Personally, I find it slightly amusing that a Senator who has so wholeheartedly defended the NSA’s intrusions into the phone records, emails, and web browsing habits of the entire country is so outraged at having her own official privacy violated.

  86. 2karmanot says:

    “The charge is a big deal, especially coming from a Democrat”—-Especially from old DiFi, a DINO, who has never given much credence to personal privacy before—-until, well, NIMBY.

  87. pliny says:

    So… by describing the internal review document, Did Feinstein just leak “classified’ information?

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS