3/29/2017: Obfuscation and other deceit

Washington Examiner: Democrats muddy the waters around Devin Nunes – “The striking part of his revelation was not that there had been surveillance but that information gleaned about Trump campaigners, supposedly of no intelligence value to the federal government, may have been shared illegally throughout government without concealing the identity of the Americans involved.”

Democrats and their media allies have refused to address this serious allegation on its merits. Their related call for Nunes to recuse himself from the panel’s separate investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election is a non-sequitur and has nothing to do with the issue he brought up.
Democrats are trying to compound media confusion between the Russia investigation and apparent but unrelated lawbreaking by the feds before Trump took office.
Democrats have responded to Nunes by throwing up a smokescreen, which suggests they are worried about possible wrongdoing against Trump, not about hinted wrongdoing by his campaign.
The issue is not the surveillance, but what was done with the information.

Nunes is right to demand answers quickly by going to the source. Democrats’ calls for him to recuse himself from a completely separate investigation are not just disingenuous, but are intended to confuse the public.

“The issue is not the surveillance, but what was done with the information.” – The Snowden Argument confused these concepts. Its presumption was that having information was the same as using information and, therefore, any attempt to obtain information was a nefarious invasion of privacy. There is a struggle about this in commerce as knowing about a customer is a means to better be able to cater to a customer’s needs and interests. That is why the mail is filled with ‘privacy statements’ so customers can know what to expect.

When it comes to government and public security, the stakes are higher. Nunez is being smeared by misrepresentations based on compartmentalization of security information. This is one technique to preserve integrity between ‘using’ and ‘having’. The laws regarding concealment of innocent parties in intelligence reports is another such precaution. The leaks outside of secured compartments that reveal the identity of innocent parties is the kind of governmental breach of trust that Snowden and his ilk were worried about. That is why it is the leaks that are serious as they are not about a single event or person but rather about the relationship between the government and its people, a relationship that is necessary for the government to do its proper job.

Scott Johnson says A Times source outs herself – “Evelyn Farkas is the former Obama administration deputy secretary of defense — and now an MSNBC analyst.”

I have lifted the video and slightly modified the transcript of Farkas’s response from the post here by Sundance at the The Conservative Tree House site. Sundance has more in the way of commentary in an update that may or may not be on point or withstand scrutiny. I agree with Sundance on this point: “Looks like Devin Nunes and the House Intelligence Committee ha[ve] a new person to bring in for testimony.” Yes, indeed, let us hear more from Ms. Farkas regarding “the Hill people” and her underlying project under oath.

John Hinderaker describes another one: Leaked DHS Document Is Another Democratic Party Scandal – “At Breitbart.com, Michael Patrick Leahy has what strikes me as an explosive story.”

So it appears that what happened here is that Democratic Party activists in the Department of Homeland Security either created a bogus document or dug up a poorly-researched draft document that had never been issued, and fed it to Democratic Party activists at the Associated Press. The Democratic Party activists at the AP published a story based on the anonymous document, which two Democratic Party activists on the bench used as a pretext for orders enjoining the president’s travel order.

Those orders should be viewed as purely political acts that have no basis in any valid judicial reasoning or authority.

The campaign continues …

Comments are closed.