Mediaboss Marketing

Former head of the National Security Agency and CIA Michael Hayden said Jared Kushner's discussions about establishing a backchannel with the Kremlin were ignorant and naive, and said the notion he would do so because of distrust for the Obama administration suggests "we're in a really dark place as a society."

"Well, Michael, right now I'm going with naivete, and that's not particularly very comforting to me," Hayden said in an interview with CNN's Michael Smerconish on Saturday. "I mean what manner of ignorance, chaos, hubris, suspicion, contempt would you have to have to think that doing this with the Russian ambassador was a good or an appropriate idea?"

The Washington Post reported Friday that Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law and a senior adviser at the White House, and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak discussed setting up a secret and secure communications channel between the Trump transition team and the Kremlin.

Kushner allegedly suggested using U.S.-based Russian diplomatic facilities for the communications to protect their discussions from any monitoring by the U.S. government, Kislyak said.

Hayden, whose career with the NSA and CIA spans three presidential administrations, said the notion that Kushner wanted to avoid monitoring suggests that Trump didn't trust the previous administration.

Actions borne out of that distrust "suggests we're in a really dark place as a society," Hayden said.

"Here you are willing to risk the perception of secret communications with your alleged co-conspirator because you feared the existing government so much," he said.

When asked what how he believed Kislyak responded to Kushner's suggestion of setting up backchannels, Hayden said the request "goes so far out of the norm that he was probably shocked."

Read the original:
Former NSA, CIA head: Kushner's attempts to set up backchannel with Russia ignorant, naive - Washington Examiner

National Security Agency (NSA) Director Admiral Michael Rogers participates in a session at the third annual Intelligence and National Security Summit in Washington, U.S., September 8, 2016. REUTERS/Gary Cameron/File Photo

Reports surfaced on Friday that National Security Agency (NSA) chief Mike Rogers told NSA workers that there is evidence that President Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign colluded with the Russian government to defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Former NSA agent John Schindler wrote in the New York Observer Friday that Rogers addressed an agency-wide town hall meeting this week that was broadcast to all of the agencys facilities around the world. In it, Rogers purportedly confirmed reports that came out last week alleging that Trump asked him to speak out against the Russia investigation.

Rogers, according to current NSA agents with whom Schindler claims to have spoken who has a very dodgy reputation in some circles said that he has seen intelligence information regarding contacts between Trump and the Kremlin.

There is no question that we [meaning NSA] have evidence of election involvement and questionable contacts with the Russians, the director reportedly said.

NSA employees walked out of the town hall impressed by the directors forthright discussion of his interactions with the Trump administration, particularly with how Rogers insisted that he had no desire to politicize the situation beyond what the president has already done, Schindler said.

The House and Senate Intelligence Committees should subpoena Rogers, Schindler said, and find out what he knows with regard to Trump and the 2016 campaign.

Schindler is regarded by some people as a conspiracy theorist along the lines of former Heat Street editor Louise Mensch, with whom Schindler enjoys an amiable online relationship. The two publish scoops reinforcing each other and share a common enemy in those who declare that anti-Trumpists are dabbling in red-baiting and conspiracy mongering.

However, as a former agent, Schindler has deep ties at the NSA.

Follow this link:
Did Admiral Mike Rogers tell the NSA that Trump colluded with the ... - Raw Story

This article first appeared on the Just Security site.

The news that Donald Trump asked the Director of National Intelligence, Daniel Coats, and the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael Rogers, to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign to influence the presidential election may, or may not, contribute to the overall emerging picture of obstruction of justice by the president.

This revelation underscores several important points about the investigation.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

First, as is so often the case in criminal investigations, the devil is in the details. That is particularly true in this case, because the investigation will likely focus on Trumps intent, that is, whether he corruptly attempted to interfere with or impede the FBI investigation, meaning with an improper purpose.

Assessing intent requires a close examination of direct evidence (like Trumps own statements about his intent), and circumstantial evidence (including Trumps actions and words before, during and after the alleged acts of obstruction).

On the face of it, its not evident that Trumps request to Coats and Rogers to comment publicly on the state of the evidence amounts to obstruction. However, according to the Washington Post article , several officials interpreted Trumps request as an attempt to interfere with the investigation.

(That said, NBC News is reporting from a single source that a former official told NBC News that Coats and Rogers did not believe they were being asked to do something illegal. It was more of a public relations request.)

Determining what Trump intended will require establishing and closely analyzing what precisely he said, and the context of his words. Was he clumsily trying to get information out to the public, or was he trying to put pressure on the FBIs investigation?

Admiral Michael Rogers, commander of U.S. Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency, testifies during a House Armed Services Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 4, 2015. Drew Angerer/Getty

How others understood Trumps words at the time will often be powerful evidence of how they were intended, but not always determinative.

Second, despite the steady revelations over the last two weeks, there may not ultimately be a smoking gun, a single piece of evidence that definitively establishes Trumps intent.

It is more likely that his intent will be discerned from all the available evidence considered together, in this case Trumps alleged request of then-FBI Director James Comey to declare his loyalty, Trumps privately expressed hope to Comey that he find a way to let the Flynn investigation go, Trumps firing of Comey, the false narrative that Trump created about the firing, Trumps statements to the Russians about dismissing Comey and Trumps own public statements about what he did.

This new revelation about Trumps request to Coats and Rogers, once its details are filled in, will need to be assessed along with all these other pieces of evidence.

Perhaps more damning than the Coats and Rogers revelation, the Washington Post story also contained the following alarming disclosure:

In addition to the requests to Coats and Rogers, senior White House officials sounded out top intelligence officials about the possibility of intervening directly with Comey to encourage the FBI to drop its probe of Michael Flynn, Trumps former national security adviser, according to people familiar with the matter. The officials said the White House appeared uncertain about its power to influence the FBI.

Can we ask him to shut down the investigation? Are you able to assist in this matter? one official said of the line of questioning from the White House.

It is difficult to believe that the senior White House officials referenced here were not being encouraged or directed by Trump to find a way to shut down the FBIs investigation. What subordinates said at the time, how they behaved, and what instructions they received from above will also help establish whether Trump committed obstruction of justice.

Third, there will always be some explanation. Following the revelation that Trump told the Russians that Comey was a nut job and that firing him had relieved great pressure on the President, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson both labored to offer benign (though notably different) explanations for Trumps words.

It would not be the first time in this affair that administration officials have sought to spin (or lie about) the facts. Investigators, and the public, will need to assess these explanations, relying in part on their common sense, to decide whether they are plausible on their face and how they fit (or dont fit) with all the available evidence.

Finally, it is again worth remembering that the question of whether Trump committed obstruction of justice, to a criminal standard, is just one part of the larger inquiry. The question of criminality cannot be the beginning and end of the investigation.

Important also is to ask whether Trump or any administration officials acted unethically; in violation of rules, regulations, or policy; incompetently; or in a manner that could undermine U.S. security or interests.

The story about Trumps request to Coats and Rogers may contribute to the obstruction inquiry, but it raises many of these other questions as well. For example, the Post cites senior intelligence officials who saw the requests as a threat to the independence of U.S. spy agencies.

For this reason, it is essential that the congressional investigations continue to probe these larger questions and to assess whether personnel, policy, or legislative reforms are warranted.

Alex Whiting is a Professor of Practice at Harvard Law School. From 2010-13, he served as the Investigation Coordinator and the Prosecution Coordinator in the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court.

Read the original:
Why Did Trump Tell NSA Chiefs to Deny Russian Plot? - Newsweek

In a letter sent today to House lawmakers, major tech companies asked for reforms to a legal authority underpinning controversial National Security Agency programs.

Section 702 is set to expire at the end of the year

Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, which is set to expire at the end of this year, is the legal basis for NSA programs that broadly sweep up electronic communications. The programs are meant to target non-US citizens overseas, although critics have long charged that Americans are unnecessarily caught up in the net. Section 702 is used to authorize the controversial PRISM program, which the NSA uses to collect information from tech companies.

The letter, signed by companies including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Uber, requests that lawmakers consider changes before reauthorizing 702, such as increasing transparency and oversight, as well as narrowing the amount of information collected under such programs. The companies also asked for more leeway in disclosing national security demands.

Last month, the NSA said it would halt 702 collections that simply mention foreign intelligence targets, a process that has been the subject of major criticism. The letter also requests that those changes to the process be codified by law.

The companies write that the letter is meant to express our support for reforms to Section 702 that would maintain its utility to the U.S. intelligence community while increasing the programs privacy protections and transparency.

More here:
Facebook, Google, and other tech companies ask lawmakers to ... - The Verge

Facebook, Google, Microsoft and a host of tech companies asked Congress on Friday to reform a government surveillance program that allows the National Security Agency to collect emails and other digital communications of foreigners outside the United States.

The requests came in the form of a letter to Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia lawmaker whos overseeing the debate in the House of Representatives to reauthorize a program, known as Section 702, which will expire at the end of the year without action by Capitol Hill.

In their note, the tech companies asked lawmakers for a number of changes to the law particularly to ensure that Americans data isnt swept up in the fray. Meanwhile, they endorsed the need for new transparency measures, including the ability to share with their customers more information about the government surveillance requests they receive.

Signing the note are companies like Airbnb, Amazon, Cisco, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Lyft, Microsoft and Uber.

Absent, however, is Apple, which previously has joined with its tech counterparts in pushing for limits in government surveillance programs. A spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

Section 702 is one of a number of U.S. surveillance authorities that had been the subject of great scrutiny and debate in the aftermath of Edward Snowdens surveillance leaks. The disclosures have also caused years of heartburn for Silicon Valley, which has faced an onslaught of criticism from international customers who feel the tech industry is too close to the U.S. government. Many top tech companies even banded together in a lobbying group that pushed for surveillance reforms in 2013.

As the fight over the NSAs powers returns to Congress, however, the Trump administration has urged lawmakers to keep Section 702 in its exact, current form.

Earlier this month, the NSA on its own terminated a piece of its program that essentially allowed the agency to collect Americans emails and texts if those communications contained key words related to foreigners that already are targeted for government surveillance.

To that end, the tech companies writing Congress today said Congress should formally outlaw that practice, known as about collection, as part of its new legislation, to ensure it cant come back.

Otherwise, the governments Section 702 program isnt supposed to target Americans. But their communications still are lapped up in the bunch, sometimes incidentally, including cases in which an American is communicating directly with a non-U.S. person who is the subject of NSA scrutiny. Despite calls from the likes of Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the agency has never disclosed the total number of Americans affected by such a program.

In response, the tech industry asked Congress to put in place judicial oversight for government queries for U.S. citizens data. And they asked House lawmakers to rethink other portions of the law to reduce the likelihood of collecting information about non-U.S. persons who are not suspected of wrongdoing.

Originally posted here:
The nation's top tech companies are asking Congress to reform a key NSA surveillance program - Recode