Email/Dossier/Govt Corruption Investigations
Clinton’s emails still are not encrypted.
According to an unnamed Platte River Networks (PRN) employee, Clinton’s server has encryption protection to combat hackers, but the individual emails have not been protected with encryption. With PRN taking over management of the server in June 2013, this employee will later tell the FBI that “the Clintons originally requested that email on [Clinton’s] server be encrypted such that no one but the users could read the content. However, PRN ultimately did not configure the email settings this way, to allow system administrators to troubleshoot problems occurring within user accounts.” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9/2/2016)
July 2, 2013 – U.S. repeals propaganda ban, begins to spread propaganda to Americans
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?
Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It’s viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran, self-immolation in Tibet, human trafficking across Asia, and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq.
The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 1970s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they “should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics.” Fulbright’s amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued that such “propaganda” should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. “from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity.”
Zorinsky and Fulbright sold their amendments on sensible rhetoric: American taxpayers shouldn’t be funding propaganda for American audiences. So did Congress just tear down the American public’s last defense against domestic propaganda?
BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet, and its flagship services such as VOA “present fair and accurate news.”
“They don’t shy away from stories that don’t shed the best light on the United States,” she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: “Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate.”
A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. “Somalis have three options for news,” the source said, “word of mouth, al-Shabab, or VOA Somalia.”
This partially explains the push to allow BBG broadcasts on local radio stations in the United States. The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul, Minnesota’s significant Somali expat community. “Those people can get al-Shabab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn’t get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia,” the source said. “It was silly.”
Lynne added that the reform has a transparency benefit as well. “Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars — greater transparency is a win-win for all involved,” she said. And so with that we have the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and went into effect this month.
But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon’s top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously. Additionally, just this month, the Washington Post exposed a counter-propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing al-Shabab. “Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership,” reported the Post.
But for BBG officials, the references to Pentagon propaganda efforts are nauseating, particularly because the Smith-Mundt Act never had anything to do with regulating the Pentagon, a fact that was misunderstood in media reports in the run-up to the passage of new Smith-Mundt reforms in January.
One example included a report by the late BuzzFeed reporter Michael Hastings, who suggested that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act would open the door to Pentagon propaganda of U.S. audiences. In fact, as amended in 1987, the act only covers portions of the State Department engaged in public diplomacy abroad (i.e. the public diplomacy section of the “R” bureau, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.)
But the news circulated regardless, much to the displeasure of Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), a sponsor of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. “To me, it’s a fascinating case study in how one blogger was pretty sloppy, not understanding the issue and then it got picked up by Politico‘s Playbook, and you had one level of sloppiness on top of another,” Thornberry told The Cable last May. “And once something sensational gets out there, it just spreads like wildfire.”
That of course doesn’t leave the BBG off the hook if its content smacks of agitprop. But now that its materials are allowed to be broadcast by local radio stations and TV networks, they won’t be a complete mystery to Americans. “Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff,” the former U.S. official told The Cable. “Now we’ll have a better sense: Gee some of this stuff is really good. Or gee some of this stuff is really bad. At least we’ll know now.” (Foreign Policy, 7/14/2013) (Archive)
- Barack Obama
- Broadcasting Board of Governors
- Department of State
- Edward Zorinsky
- government propaganda
- J. William Fulbright
- July 2013
- lying to public
- Lynne Weil
- Mac Thornberry
- Michael Hastings
- Middle East Broadcasting Networks
- mith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012
- National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
- Pentagon propaganda
- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
- Smith-Mundt Act
- Voice of America (VOA)
July 7, 2013 – Judge Reggie Walton rules over FISA court during Obama’s great expansion of NSA authority and the power to amass vast collections of data
(…) Reggie Walton is the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose 11 members are appointed directly by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Revelations of broad spying by the National Security Agency have drawn unusual attention to the Court, which The New York Times reported Sunday “has created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data.”
(..) He has drawn little notice for his role in shaping the nation’s secret law — even his Wikipedia page barely mentions the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But since his appointment to the court in 2007, the FISA Court has dramatically expanded the ability of the federal government to use controversial techniques to gather intelligence on Americans both at home and abroad that have outraged civil libertarians.
Walton serves as the court’s public face to the very limited extent that it has one — typically, in low-grade sparring with Congress. Because the vast majority of the court’s rulings are sealed, it is impossible to know which rulings expanding NSA’s authority Walton has written. But it is clear that during his time on the court those powers have increased significantly.
That comfort with government power fits neatly with some elements of his career.
(…) “While I certainly have reservations about PRISM (and the FISA court in general), Judge Walton certainly does not strike me as the type who would rubber-stamp the DOJ’s requests,” Walton’s former clerk said.
As for the question of transparency and greater public scrutiny of the court’s activities, don’t look for Walton to become a champion of openness.
In a March letter to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Diane Feinstein, Walton said that there are certain circumstances under which judges on his court can release their opinions and committed to ensuring they know of those opportunities. But Walton is clearly not going to push the boundaries of the classification process, bluntly warning that “I would not anticipate many such cases given the fact-intensive nature of [these] opinions.” (Read more: Buzzfeed, 7/07/2013) (Archive)
July 10, 2013 – Joe Biden jokes about China ‘helping him’
When Joe Biden was Vice President, he told an audience at a US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue meeting that he had the “great pleasure” of spending “a fair amount of time with President Xi,” after Xi was made president of China.
“I congratulated him on his elevation, I asked if he could possibly help me,” Biden then joked, in a clip which can still be viewed on the Obama White House YouTube page, according to the NY Post.
And as American Thinker frames it:
During the 2016 campaign, candidate Trump made a joke about asking Russia for help in finding Hillary Clinton’s deleted (and bleach-bitted) emails from her private server, and that was taken as evidence for launching an FBI investigation and subsequent special counsel probe on non-existent “collusion” with Russia. Yet back in 2013, Joe Biden, whose son was hauled around on Air Force Two to help him make lucrative deals with foreign powers including China, openly “joked” about asking Beijing for help becoming president, and we are only hearing of it this weekend:
Then, months after Biden’s July 2013 comments, he flew with son Hunter on Air Force Two, landing in Beijing where he would meet with Hunter’s Chinese partners at BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Co, according to the New York Post.
July 18, 2013 – A Ukrainian oligarch arms dealer throws a fundraiser for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff
“Fox News host Laura Ingraham did a deep dive into Rep. Adam Schiff’s, D-Calif., connections to Ukraine on Tuesday’s episode of “The Ingraham Angle,” and asked why these revelations were ignored by other news outlets.
Ingraham said it was discovered that Schiff had close ties to a Ukranian arms dealer who moved his corporation into the lawmaker’s California district. The arms dealer then held a fundraiser for the House Intelligence Committee chairman, which could suggest a quid pro quo situation between them, as Schiff traded political capital for campaign cash.
“Here’s something no one in the media is covering — Adam Schiff’s ties to Ukraine. How deep do they go?” she asked.
“First, I want you all to meet Soviet-born arms dealer Igor Pasternak… the founder and CEO of worldwide arrows corporation. Pasternak grew up in the Ukraine, but some 25 years ago, his company moved to a location near Schiff’s district in southern California.
“Since that time, Pasternak continued to receive lucrative surveillance and weapons deals from Ukraine’s government. Here’s where Schiff enters the picture — in 2013, Pasternak hosted a fund-raiser for Schiff. No big deal, right? That’s until you realize how Adam Schiff’s priorities completely shifted.
“Now before this time, Schiff rarely, if ever, mentioned Ukraine. But after the fundraiser, he used multiple television appearances to basically demand that we send money and arms to them.” (Read more: Fox News, 10/02/2019) (Archive)
Pasternak stood to make a tidy sum if Democrats could grease the wheels for him in Ukraine. And they did exactly that.
From the Illustrated Primer: