State Department Brief Today on Snowden. Unbelievable

[Catherina]

QUESTION: Can we start in Russia –

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- with Mr. Snowden? I’m wondering if, since he has now asked the Russians for asylum, there has been any contact between this building and the Russians about your feelings about his status.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I can tell you – I hadn’t seen – or I don’t have independent confirmation, I guess I should say, about any request he’s made. I can tell you that we have been in touch, of course, with Russian officials. Our Embassy in Moscow has been in direct contact on the ground. We are disappointed that Russian officials and agencies facilitated this meeting today by allowing these activists and representatives into the Moscow airport’s transit zone to meet with Mr. Snowden despite the government’s declarations of Russia’s neutrality with respect to Mr. Snowden.

QUESTION: So I’m sorry. You’re disappointed that they let someone into their own airport?

MS. PSAKI: Well –

QUESTION: I don’t get it.

MS. PSAKI: Well, that they facilitated this event, of course.

QUESTION: Well, why?

MS. PSAKI: Because this gave a forum for –

QUESTION: You don’t think that he should have a forum? Has he – he’s forfeited his right to freedom of speech as well?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, Mr. Snowden –

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: -- as we’ve talked about – let me just state this –

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- because I think it’s important. He’s not a whistleblower. He’s not a human rights activist. He’s wanted in a series of serious criminal charges brought in the eastern district of Virginia and the United States.

QUESTION: Okay. I’m sorry. But I didn’t realize people who were wanted on charges forfeited their right to speech – to free speech. I also didn’t realize that people who were not whistleblowers or not human rights activists, as you say he is not, that they forfeited their rights to speak, so I don’t understand why you’re disappointed with the Russians, but neither that – leave that aside for a second.

The group WikiLeaks put out a transcript, I guess, essentially, of Mr. – what Mr. Snowden said at the airport. At the top of that transcript, it contained – it said that the Human Rights Watch representative from Human Rights Watch, researcher who went to this thing, while she was on her way to the airport, got a phone call from the American Ambassador asking her to relay a message to Mr. Snowden that – basically the message that you just gave here, that, one, he is not a whistleblower, and, two, that he is wanted in the United States. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: It is not correct. First, Ambassador McFaul did not call any representative from Human Rights Watch. An embassy officer did call to explain our position, certainly, that I just reiterated here for all of you today, but at no point did this official or any official from the U.S. Government ask anyone to convey a message to Mr. Snowden.

QUESTION: Did anyone from the Embassy call any of the other groups – representatives of groups that were going to this meeting – that you understood were going to this meeting?

MS. PSAKI: As I’m sure would be no surprise, and as you know because we even had a civil society event when the Secretary was there, we are in regular touch, as we have been today. I don’t have an update on the exact list of calls, though, for you.

QUESTION: But you can say pretty conclusively that this one call did happen, and that it wasn’t the Ambassador. So were there others? Do you know?

MS. PSAKI: We have –

QUESTION: Did calls go to other groups?

MS. PSAKI: -- been in touch with –

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- attendees.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any specifics for you, though.

QUESTION: Okay. And the – and you have made no secret of the fact that any country or government that gives Mr. Snowden asylum or allows him to transit through, that there would be some serious consequences for – grave consequences in their relationship with the United States.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Have you made the same – and presumably that would apply to individuals who would help him stay – help him avoid returning here to face justice. Is that – that’s correct?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure what that exactly means.

QUESTION: Well, I’m – what I’m getting at is these groups, the human rights groups that are respected human rights groups –

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- which you yourself, as well as previous spokespeople have quoted from –

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- in relation to other situations, have taken a side in support of Mr. Snowden, and I’m wondering if there are any consequences for them if you – if they aid and abet Mr. Snowden in staying away – out of the reach of U.S. authorities.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we obviously don’t think this was a proper forum or a proper elevation of him. Beyond that, the way that I think it’s been asked, but also the way we’ve thought about it, is more about governments and our relationships with them and their aid or decisions to aid Mr. Snowden.

QUESTION: Right, but I guess the question is: If you think this was an inappropriate forum, did you try to dissuade these groups from going there?

MS. PSAKI: From attending?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of, Matt. Obviously –

QUESTION: Okay. So the call –

MS. PSAKI: -- they were invited to attend.

QUESTION: So the calls were just a reminder of your position. Did you say to Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International that if you guys help Mr. Snowden, support him in some way so that – to keep him from facing justice back in the United States, that there would be consequences for them?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any readouts of these calls. Our focus remains on –

QUESTION: Okay. Well, then can you say –

MS. PSAKI: -- conveying to the Russian Government the fact that they have the ability to help return Mr. Snowden to the United States.

QUESTION: Did you tell them in the calls that you did not think that Mr. Snowden should have the opportunity to express his view?

MS. PSAKI: Matt, I don’t have any readout for these – of these calls for you. We did --

QUESTION: Okay. Well, forget about the calls, then.

MS. PSAKI: We did convey the broad point that I’ve made.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, then forget about what you said or what the Embassy people said in these specific phone calls. Do you believe that Mr. Snowden should not have had the opportunity to express his views at the airport in Moscow today?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I think we broadly believe in free speech, as you know.

QUESTION: Except when it comes to this.

MS. PSAKI: But we cannot look at this as a – I know we like to ask about sweeping scenarios in here, but --

QUESTION: No, this is not sweeping at all. This is very specific, related to one guy in one place in one city, one airport, one time. So I just – do you think that it was inappropriate for Mr. Snowden to speak publicly? Do you – I mean, not that – whether you’re disappointed in the Russians. Do you think that he should not have had the opportunity to speak publicly?

MS. PSAKI: Our focus, Matt, is on how our concern about how Russian authorities clearly helped assist the ability of attendees to participate in this.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MS. PSAKI: That is of concern to us. Our focus is on returning Mr. Snowden to the United States. Beyond that, I just don’t have anything more.

QUESTION: Okay. I’m just – I’m trying to get – you are saying that this essentially – it wasn’t a press conference, but it might as well have been. And you don’t think the Russians should have helped to facilitate a --

MS. PSAKI: Facilitated a propaganda platform for Mr. Snowden.

QUESTION: -- a propaganda platform. Okay. So this is, to your mind, something like them bringing out a defected spy from the Cold War and putting him on a platform and having him rail against the United States. Is that what the Administration believes?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to draw comparisons along those lines. But let me say --

QUESTION: “A propaganda platform” is close enough.

MS. PSAKI: -- that Mr. Snowden could – should return to the United States to face these charges that – where he will be accorded a fair trial. That’s where our focus is.

QUESTION: Well, is this a propaganda platform or is this kind of putting in train a process for asylum? Because last week, or two weeks ago, the Russians said that they would consider his request for asylum if Mr. Snowden would stop leaking material about – or leaking information about U.S. surveillance programs. Now, he wouldn’t do that before, and he tried some other areas for asylum.

Now, in this propaganda platform, as you call it, he said that he has decided to – not to leak any more information, or he doesn’t have any more information, but he’s done. So are you concerned now that this is him accepting conditions for Russian asylum publicly as opposed to just some kind of propaganda? I mean, is that your real concern here, that these are the conditions for asylum and now he’s publicly meeting them?

MS. PSAKI: Our concern here is that he’s been provided this opportunity to speak in a propaganda platform, as I mentioned a few seconds ago, that Russia has played a role in facilitating this, that others have helped elevate it. But we still believe that Russia has the opportunity to do the right thing and facilitate his return to the United States.

QUESTION: Well, but --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any independent knowledge, as would be no surprise, of what he has officially requested, what has officially been --

QUESTION: Well, it’s pretty public that Russia --

MS. PSAKI: -- accepted or not.

QUESTION: Okay, but it’s pretty public that Russia said that they would consider his asylum petition if he said that – if he would agree publicly to stop leaking information. Now he’s done that.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So is that propaganda, or is that publicly agreeing to Russia’s conditions and kind of moving the asylum petition along?

MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to make an evaluation of what Russia’s conditions are and whether he meets --

QUESTION: Well, you don’t have to make an evaluation. They’ve said it publicly.

MS. PSAKI: -- let me finish – whether he meets them. That’s not the point here. The point is Russia helped facilitate this. They have the ability and the opportunity to do the right thing and help return Mr. Snowden to the United States. It’s not about what the conditions are.

QUESTION: But you don’t – I mean, is it – I mean, your concern now is that this is – that Russia’s – by facilitating – I mean, are you really upset that this is propaganda, or are you really upset that Russia is moving closer to accepting to this guy’s asylum?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we don’t know that. This is a step that was taken today. Obviously, we continue to call for his return. They have a role they can play in that. Beyond that, I’m not going to speculate what they are or aren’t going to do.

QUESTION: Jen, can I just ask: What level of seniority was the U.S. official that called Human Rights Watch?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have an exact position for you on that.

QUESTION: And --

MS. PSAKI: It was not the Ambassador, though.

QUESTION: Okay. And how did the U.S. get to know about this visit? Was – were you informed by the Russians or by Human Rights Watch?

MS. PSAKI: We learned when it was made public, just as many of your organizations did.

QUESTION: Can I just --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: In the conversations that the Ambassador, or whoever it was the Embassy had – not with the Human Rights people, but with the Russian Government --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- did you tell them that facilitating this appearance by Mr. Snowden was problematic, that you thought that they shouldn’t do it?

MS. PSAKI: I --

QUESTION: Did you ask them not to do it?

MS. PSAKI: We made our concerns and our view on Mr. Snowden clear.

QUESTION: No, but I – specifically about giving him this propaganda platform, as you called it.

MS. PSAKI: I just – I don’t have any more to read out for you from the private phone calls, Matt, just that there – we have been in touch.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, did you ask the Russians, please don’t do this, we think he’s a criminal and needs to come back? Did you – did – I mean, did you ask and they rejected the request?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, we’ve been clear publicly --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: -- countless times what our view is --

QUESTION: I understand that, but --

MS. PSAKI: -- and we’ve consistently made the same points privately, today and any other day.

QUESTION: Right. But did you say that you would look negatively on them providing him a, quote-unquote, “propaganda platform?”

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have any more on the specifics of the calls.

QUESTION: Well, is the United States Government now in the business of trying to discourage people or governments from facilitating people having – meeting with human rights activists? I don’t get it.

MS. PSAKI: Matt, this is not a universal position of the United States. This is an individual --

QUESTION: So it’s just in this one case.

MS. PSAKI: -- who has been accused of three – of felony charges.

QUESTION: But surely – Jen --

MS. PSAKI: This is not a unique --

QUESTION: Okay. He’s been accused. Do you remember the old line that we’re supposed to all know – he has not been convicted of anything yet.

MS. PSAKI: And he can return to the United States and face the charges.

QUESTION: But he can also surely – people who are accused of crimes are allowed their right of free speech, are they not?

MS. PSAKI: Matt, I think we’ve gone the round on this.

QUESTION: No, I mean, it’s a legitimate question. I mean, you talk about even in Russia that journalists have been persecuted and political activists have been persecuted and you call for free speech around the world. But you’re not saying that Mr. Snowden has the right of free speech?

MS. PSAKI: That’s not at all what I was saying. We believe, of course, broadly in free speech. Our concern here was that this was – there was obvious facilitation by the Russians in this case. We’ve conveyed that. We’ve conveyed our concerns. I’m saying them publicly.

QUESTION: So you’re upset – you’re not upset about the press conference; you’re upset that the Russians facilitated it.

MS. PSAKI: We certainly are upset that there was a platform for an individual who’s been accused of felony crimes.

QUESTION: But what does that matter, really? I mean, people that are in jail or are on trial in the United States, they give press conferences or they speak out all the time. I mean, it sounds to me like what you’re not really upset with the act that he spoke; you’re upset with the fact that the Russians did something on his behalf.

MS. PSAKI: I think I’ve expressed what we’re upset about.

QUESTION: I don’t --

MS. PSAKI: And you keep saying what we’re upset about. But I think I’ve made clear what we’re upset about.

QUESTION: Madam, can I just follow up real quick?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Just a quick – I’m sorry – question on this. The Secretary has said in the past that this issue with Ed Snowden is just not his portfolio, and that all of this is being handled primarily through the Justice Department. Can you clarify what the State Department’s role is, then? Because obviously there is contact today on the ground in Russia with diplomats involved.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think just for context’s sake, for everybody, that was said after a meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov. Obviously, there are a number of issues that we do discuss and will continue to discuss with the Russians. But we’re going to express concerns where we have them. We have been in touch on the ground; Embassy officials have been in touch on the ground with Russian officials. So yes, of course we have expressed our concerns, and they have been expressed previously. But the Secretary was making that comment in the context of his meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov.

QUESTION: So what is the regular channel of communication between Embassy officials, or is it at a higher level? I mean, has Deputy Secretary Burns been in more regular contact? We haven’t really heard in recent --

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have any other specific calls or contacts to read out for you. Obviously, there are many components of the government who are engaged and involved in this issue, but beyond that, I don’t have anything specific for you.

QUESTION: Is it this building’s role, then, to formally request a denial of asylum? I mean, what is the communication here? If the issue of him being a fugitive is handled through Justice, what is it that State is doing?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we would like to see him returned to the United States, and he can be put on a plane to do exactly that.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: So does that mean the issuance of an actual letter from the State Department? Would the counselor issue a letter on State Department letterhead, or is that simply reserved for the Attorney General?

MS. PSAKI: That’s ahead of where the process is right now. I’ve – I think as events unfold, we’ll – we can provide you all updates.

QUESTION: Jen, on this point that you were talking about just now, there was apparently a fresh offer for asylum if he stops leaking. That was made today. I understand that was made today --

MS. PSAKI: Which Elise just asked about. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- like a couple of hours ago. So what is exactly your position? I didn’t understand it. So you – did you tell the Russians that that is rejected, that is unacceptable? What language did you use?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve conveyed outside of that – I don’t have any independent confirmation of what’s been offered or what’s been approved or accepted, beyond that Russia has the ability to do the right thing, the opportunity to do the right thing, and facilitate his return to the United States.

QUESTION: And second, you said that he’s not a whistleblower; he’s a felon. Now, according to --

MS. PSAKI: I said he’s been accused --

QUESTION: He’s been accused, okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- of felony crimes. Yes.

QUESTION: He’s not – yeah, but apparently public opinion polls in America show that, three to one, the public says that he’s a whistleblower. Does that factor in, like the petition in Egypt, in any way?

MS. PSAKI: I think you’re linking a lot of things together there.

QUESTION: No. Okay, what is --

MS. PSAKI: I’m conveying he is a United States citizen.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: He’s facing crimes in the United States. He can return to the United States and face the charges.

QUESTION: Okay, so public opinion should not matter in this case. That’s what you’re saying.

MS. PSAKI: In terms of defining --

QUESTION: This is a purely legal --

MS. PSAKI: -- his specific role, I’m giving you an overview of the U.S. Government view.

QUESTION: Jen, just a quick follow-up. Are privately – Russians are telling you in Moscow or at the United Nations or in Washington about this offer?

MS. PSAKI: Are they privately --

QUESTION: Asylum, yeah.

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have any updates on that for you, Goyal.

QUESTION: When was the last time before today’s contacts did anyone from this building talk with Russian officials? Or have all of the conversations been strictly from the Justice Department?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think even Secretary Kerry spoke briefly with Foreign Minister Lavrov about it when they last met. So obviously, there have been contacts at a range of levels. I don’t have any update for you on the last high-level contact from the building, but it’s fair to say that the State Department, just like other administrative – Administration departments, where appropriate, have been very engaged. We’ve been working very closely with the Department of Justice, as Secretary – as the Secretary also said.

QUESTION: But wouldn’t it be logical to assume that if the entrée was made for Amnesty and Human Rights Watch and WikiLeaks and other people to get into this transit zone, that the Russian authorities would have had some sort of heads-up and would have conceivably made some sort of arrangements in order to get them into an area where, theoretically, they’re not supposed to have access because they’re not, quote, “in transit”? And wouldn’t the U.S. have had more of an alert before finding out from the media today that this event was going to happen?

MS. PSAKI: Well, you are correct that this is an area only accessible with the assistance of Russian authorities. Beyond that, we, of course, saw the announcement earlier this morning online, or wherever it was first made, but that was the first we learned of the plans for this event.

QUESTION: Is it your position that in his meeting with these human rights activists, Mr. Snowden committed more violations of American law?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I was suggesting that, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. Then I just don’t understand. I think this is an incredibly slippery slope that you’re going down here, that the U.S. Government is going down here, if you are coming up and saying to us that you’re trying to prevent an American citizen – albeit one who has been accused of serious crimes – from exercising his right to free speech. You don’t agree with that?

MS. PSAKI: I believe that what I’ve conveyed most proactively here is our concern about those who helped facilitate this event --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: -- and make it into a propaganda platform.

QUESTION: Right. And --

QUESTION: Or a public asylum --

QUESTION: -- the propaganda platform aside, free speech covers propaganda. Last time I checked, it covers a lot of things. And I don’t see, unless he’s somehow violated U.S. law by speaking at this – at the Russian – the transit line at the Russian airport, I don’t see why you would be disappointed in the Russians for, one, facilitating it, but also, apparently from what it sounds like, tried to discourage them from – tried to discourage this – them from allowing this event to take place in the – to take place at all.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, this isn’t happening, clearly, because we wouldn’t be talking about it, in a vacuum. And this is an individual, as we all know, who has been accused of felony crimes in the United States. We have expressed strongly our desire to have him returned --

QUESTION: I understand.

MS. PSAKI: -- to face those charges. This is all applicable context to these circumstances.

QUESTION: But as you have also said, he is a U.S. citizen.

MS. PSAKI: He is, yes.

QUESTION: He remains a U.S. citizen, and he enjoys certain rights as a U.S. citizen. One of those rights, from your point of view, is that he has the right to come back and face trial for the crimes he’s committed. But the rights that you’re not talking about are his right to free speech, his right to talk with whoever he wants to, freedom to assemble. I don’t understand why those rights are – why you ignore those and simply say that he has – that he’s welcome to come back to the United States to exercise his right to be tried by a jury of his peers. Why is that the only right that he gets, according to this Administration?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think that’s what my statement conveyed.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Has the – I just want to find out, has the U.S. spoken – had contact with the Russian Ambassador here to convey that message?

MS. PSAKI: I’d have to check on additional contacts beyond what I just stated.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Is there a belief in this building that the Russians are not dealing with the U.S. in good faith regarding Edward Snowden?

MS. PSAKI: I think our belief is what I stated, which is that they still have the opportunity to do the right thing. We are disappointed in their – with their role in facilitating the events of this morning, but we will continue to convey that we’d like to see him returned, and they can play a role in that.

QUESTION: How much is this – sorry.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I was just going to ask: Has the Administration sent any officials or any people representing the Administration to this transit area in the Moscow airport to try to make contact with Snowden directly?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: How – if the Russians accept his asylum decision, how badly will this damage the relationship? Is it – is this the most important issue in the relationship with Russia right now?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not going to rank them. Obviously, we work with Russia on a range of issues. There’s no question that, as we’ve stated broadly with any country that would have a role in assisting him either in transit or in a final place for him to live, that that would raise concerns in our relationship. However, we’re not at that point yet. They still have the --

QUESTION: Raise concerns, or would it damage the relationship irreparably?

MS. PSAKI: Well, at least this hasn’t happened yet. They still have the opportunity to do the right thing and return Mr. Snowden to the United States, and that’s what our hope is.

QUESTION: But you don’t really think that’s going to happen. I mean, you’re growing resigned to the idea that they’re going to accept his asylum petition --

MS. PSAKI: I’m not – that’s not at all what I stated.

QUESTION: Do you – and this is not contentious, I don’t think. Do you know if the Secretary has any plans to talk to Lavrov? I mean, yes, I realize it’s not necessarily their specific portfolios, but now that it is a diplomatic thing --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. I’m not aware of a planned call, Matt.

QUESTION: Could I ask – the WikiLeaks statement that Edward Snowden put out, he accepted all extended offers of asylum, including the one from Venezuela, and said that that relationship is now formal, that he’s now an asylee. Does the U.S. recognize this?

And he also said that that would give him some kind of international legal protections. And in that case, as an asylee, what kind of implications would that have for the U.S.’s continuing efforts to extradite him?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s not for the United States to recognize. Our position and our message to every government we’ve communicated with has been the same, which is that we’d like to see him returned to face the charges he’s been accused of. I don’t have any independent confirmation of what’s been offered or accepted in any of these cases.

QUESTION: New subject?

MS. PSAKI: Are we done with Snowden? Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: Oh, go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) in summary just to say that today’s events have not changed the U.S. position and have not changed his legal status, Snowden’s status?

MS. PSAKI: On the second, not that I’m aware of. And on the first, absolutely, it has not changed our position.

...

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2013/07/211891.htm#SNOWDEN

[rsmith6621]

1. this is the longest single post in DU HISTORY.

Congratulation.

[Gman]

6. K&R for the DU record length post

[Dragonfli]

14. I'd have yo do some searching, but I believe Prosense has that record

Just the other day she posted a reply that was at least three times as long as that.
As for who truly and officially holds the record, there are too many years to search through to be easily certain.

[bobduca]

19. Hey now

Ms. Psaki may sound exactly like ProSense but that is going too far!!!! I object most vociferously to your personal attack!

[Gman]

38. Well, there's no easy way to really know

But it is unusually long. But The OP is good info.

[L0oniX]

146. No one beats the link meister.

[MjolnirTime]

51. and of so little worth...

[sabrina 1]

171. It depends on whether or not you are interested in facts. I read all of it and was shocked at

to see some real journalism for a change, and with that the absolute inability of a Government spokesperson to explain policies that go against everything we are taught to believe regarding democracy. She simply could not, and I give her credit for trying, explain these policies.

Kudos though for what was excellent questioning by a real journalist, something we don't see here very often.

I recommend you do read it, just to see what a real free press would look like.

[HooptieWagon]

2. Too long to read in entirety...

But what I did read was a whole lot of weaseling, parsing, and spinning from the State Dept.
Obama just digging himself a deeper hole on this. Only 2 reasons... either his ego won't let him admit hes wrong, correct the situation, and move on. Or, he's covering up something much more serious. My guess is the latter.

[ohheckyeah]

7. It's really worth reading. n/t

[karynnj]

62. My first impression - that the male reporter cut the female spokesperson off before she could

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

complete her answers. He repeatedly asked questions and cut her off sometimes after less than 5 words. He then often took those incomplete responses and twisted them. Whether you like the State Department position or not, this is more a reporter trying to make news than to understand from the spokesperson what the State Department actually did or what there position was.

I am surprised that no one cut off the reporter. Imagine this were the other way around - say it was a Republican House member questioning someone from Wikileaks before his committee where he asked a question framed to his political agenda and then cut the spokesperson off before they could get 5 words out -- and then twisted the partial answers. This is NOT journalism, nor an honest attempt to actually learn what the State Department's actions were. (In fact, a NORMAL Q&A might have provided far more information on what the State Department actually did. )

As to "weaseling, parsing, and spinning", the reporter did not give her any chance to do any of that.

[HardTimes99]

63. It's worth it to read the disgraceful equivocations by a govt. spokesperson in their

entirety.

Absolutely disgusting.

[allin99]

81. i'm still trying to figure out what propagranda she's talking about.

[HardTimes99]

83. Her boss, Secretary of State Kerry, is famous (infamous?) for

saying in 2004 on the campaign trail that he still would have voted to go to war in Iraq even if he knew ahead of time that Iraq had no WMDs.



So I don't find Psaki's comments that out of character, given her boss. And that's where the buck really stops.

[karynnj]

109. Kerry NEVER said that - it was a media smear

Here is what happened - as written at the time http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081204.shtml

Apparently you also missed Kerry's speech on Iraq given at NYU that the campaigned labeled a major speech in September - where he said he would NOT have taken the country to war.

And you missed that in January 23 2003, he spoke at Georgetown saying NOT TO RUSH TO WAR and saying if Bush did it would not be a war of last resort.

It is ridiculous that you trash Kerry just because he is not as enamored with Snowden as you.

[HardTimes99]

112. I beg your pardon.My wife and I watched Kerry on TV in Colorado Springs be asked the question

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 08:17 PM - Edit history (1)

and his answer.

After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I turned to my wife and said "Kerry just lost the General Election." Oh, sure, I held my nose and voted for him.

If it was a media smear, then my wife and I must have collectively hallucinated the exchange between Kerry and the reporter.

By the way, your article agrees that Kerry said the following:

Yes, I would have voted for the authority [to go to war]. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have.

Now just what question do you think Kerry was answering when he uttered those words?

[karynnj]

115. That is because the news person stated the question as

he did. Read the article - As to your quote that was what Kerry said many many times - and THEN spoke of how Bush misused that authority. You ignore that Bush argued he needed that authority for the inspections to happen. He promised to go war only as a last resort - if it became necessary.

Kerry was likely asked the same question he always was asked which was was his vote wrong. Only in October 2006 did he say that his vote was wrong. Instead he is speaking of why he voted as he did. The media created the "if you knew then what is known now" stuff - which makes no sense with his full answer.

The fact is that Howard Dean himself said he would have voted for Biden/Lugar (also Kerry's preferred bill) and in fact, spoke of the conditions under which he would go to war.

[Catherina]

127. The idea is that anything coming out of Snowden's mouth, and out of Russia

The idea is that anything coming out of Snowden's mouth, and out of Russia, is propaganda- something she restates with delicious irony several times from her own propaganda platform. Our cold war propaganda is going to be in full swing now. Several politicians have clearly stated it, calling Putin a KBG operative and tweeting to him Russian Spring (student uprising) was on it's way. It's several petty slurs rolled into one. Jay Carney repeated the exact same coordinated talking point. It's another blue-link special from the Ministry of Truth.


Variations of the first video are the twitter hit of the week

[karynnj]

110. How do you equivocate or anything if you can't get a word in edgewise?

[HardTimes99]

111. Here's how:

Well, Matt, I think we broadly believe in free speech, as you know.

(Emphasis added)

***********************

One either believes in free speech or one does not. Belief (or lack thereof) does not admit of degrees (unless one is equivocating, as in "We believe in free speech, except when it is propaganda." That has echoes of "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

[karynnj]

120. I disagree

There are limits to free speech - the classic example is not screaming FIRE in a crowded theatre. Not to mention, you can believe in free speech and strongly oppose the very speech you defend the right to happen. (ie The ACLU did him NOT agree with the neo Nazi talk they argued had the right to exist.)

She did not say that Snowden did not have the right to speak. She also said that Russia in giving him this platform was doing it for reasons of antiAmerican propaganda. Not to mention Snowden praised Putin on human rights!

[RememberTheNinth]

181. to Karyn[formerlyNJ-but now]VT, re: "limits to free speech" and the Fire/crowded theater meme...

The always unspoken, and generally unknown and unacknowledged major premise to this "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" meme is this:

You are not "free" to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if in fact there is no fire in the crowded theater.

Another way of stating this so-called exception to freedom of speech: If there is no fire in a crowded theater and you sing out 'Fire, fire fire, raging all about; here come the firemen to put the fire out; great big ladder, long long hose, ...these are the firemen who'll put the fire out" (or something like that, from a 1949 Young People's Record Club ditty), then you can be held liable for all sorts of things, like causing a riot, being the proximate cause of people being trampled to death in their panic, etc.

However, what if the theater actually IS on fire? Generally, citizens and law enforcement folks do NOT have an affirmative duty to keep any particular member of We the People safe from harm. In at least one case, where the victim was in fear for her life, the police told her they could not protect her, and told her to "get a gun" and learn to use it. She did not follow this advice, and her stalking ex grievously wounded her (he was more successful in killing himself). But the "authorities" can punish the utterance of falsehoods in a dangerous situation. And do.

It should be pointed out that these "Police have no affirmative duty to protect a specific individual" cases are all about money; survivors and/or victims of this lack of protection are suing for damages in civil court

It then ceases to be a "freedom of speech" issue, but a "truth" issue, seems to me. We deal with defamation (slander & libel) similarly. If the speech or publication is harmful but true, plaintiff loses. And if the speech or publication is about a rich, famous or otherwise notable soul, the standard is only that a "reasonable reporter's attempt under hysterical deadline conditions" to ascertain the truth was made.

The problem is that our government and every person in it now seems to think it has the upper hand, greater power, in all situations, than the theoretically all-powerful We the People, who delegated only some some of their/our omnipotence to a Constitutional Republic.

I wonder how Ms. "We Broadly Endorse Freedom of Speech For the People, But Not For Mere Persons" would handle it if the reporter took out his/her pocket Constitution and read her the First Amendment. And asked her to repeat, for the press there assembled, her federal oath of office.

Then ask the question, "Do you find the words 'broadly endorse' in the First Amendment to the Constitution?"

And what do you mean by "do the right thing"? Does this include lying, under oath, to Congress, as our National Surveillance Agency and our current "Unitary Liar-In-Chief" (aka "President&quot have recently done? Or do you really mean, "Say what we want you to say, because we're the pre-eminent bad-ass on the planet"?

Here's a just-for-fun-factoid: Count the number of years this peace-loving country of ours has been at peace. In the 216 years since 1789, our peace-loving, democracy-exporting government has been at war of one sort or another for 201 of those 216 years: 15 years of "peace," 201 years of war. Or about 7% peaceable and 93% bellicose war monger.

This is not the record of a peaceful nation, though our "leaders" always try to sneak this lie past us from the propaganda platforms We the People have paid to build and opulently repair, in most of the text-books we pay to have our children read and "learn," pay teachers to "teach," and so on.

Our elected officials, in particular, seem to have invariably had a complete aversion to people speaking what was on their minds if it was critical of their own or of campaign contributors' actions. They suppose themselves to be in some kind of charmed world "where seldom is heard/a discouraging word." President #2, John Adams, was so offended by unkind comments on his rotundity, judgement, bellicosity in the press of the day that he got passed, and signed, the Sedition Act, under which several editors were thrown into prison (one died there, but supposedly of natural causes).

The Supremes of that time tried to sustain the patent, "facial" unconstitutionality of that law under the specious logic (or lie) that the framers had intended to distinguish "prior restraint" of speech vs. punishment after the "free utterance" of speech.

Prior restraint of speech, following English Common law, would be unconstitutional, they said, but punishment after the fact would not be. My view, and that of others, is this: While the Supremes' decision might be used as fertilizer to enrich their fields, as the manure of any animal generally does, it certainly did Adams and the judiciary little good, as President #3, Jefferson, pardoned all of the publishers and set them free. And the decision is generally excoriated by those then living and their posterity.

It should be added (so I will) that Adams, in seeking to silence critics of the then-current war, was worried that a newborn nation would not be strong enough to both fight the enemy abroad and enlist the assent of We the People at home, particularly not strong enough to do all that and repay the national debt, owed to those rich folks of Adams' money/power class.

As we all know, there is a great deal of money to be made by going to war (how do you repair/recycle an eight-inch naval shell that blows up when it hits a target?), but only if the governments which invariably have to borrow it actually pay their "debts" to the profiteers. With uncoöperating We the People's money. Repaying this "national debt" was the first or nearly the first, legislative matter taken up by the 1st Congress, under the rubric "Money talks; soldiers walk (into bankruptcy)." Not much has changed in two centuries.

Final note: Unless we are willing to insist on recovering the enumerated and un-enumerated rights and powers We the People set out in the Bill of Rights, stripped away by our"elected" (so-called) "representatives" (so-called) on the grounds that "9/11 changed everything," they will be lost forever.

If you're a Verizon customer, for example (as am I), what do you do if you want to stay in touch with family members, want to express any opinion via email, tweets, snail-mail, over cellular or "conventional" phone lines that you know is currently not popular with the ruling class? Remember Ari Fleischer telling Bill Maher that Maher had "better be careful what you say." (The current government propaganda had found that "coward" was particularly effective in raising vengeful bile amongst the citizens (that is, it "played well in focus groups&quot , so the government called the so-called "hijackers"--never proven, of course--"cowards" and labeled their supposed "acts" as "cowardly." Maher took exception, saying essentially that "whatever adjective you wish to tag them with, "cowardly" is probably not le mot juste, or the apposite word. This Fleischer caution, coming from an Israeli citizen (Fleischer) to a Jewish atheist, was noted as a quite remarkable warning or threat at the time. And Maher subsequently did lose his comedy show for a time, as I recall.

I well recall that my signature on a petition in 1968 (that freedom to assemble and petition the gov't for redress of grievances thing) cost me six months' loss of GI education benefits--this was a Vietnam Veterans Against the War petition asking for the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam. The current government claimed that it was nearly impossible to withdraw from S. Vietnam. A Vermont Republican senator, George Aiken, disagreed, saying that "all we have to do is declare victory and leave." As I recall, a Texas rep. said much the same thing about Iraq: When we invaded Iraq, we just marched in. We can just march out the way we came in.

The main problem the government had with the VVAW was, I think, that it was really difficult to find a way to calumniate, slander, neutralize the VVAW message, as these citizens had not burned their draft cards, fled to Canada, but had actually served in the war, keeping America safe for--as that crazy Marine general, Smedly Butler, put it--United Fruit, Bank of America, and other plutocrats, fascisti, and Wall Street banksters, and lived to tell about the waste, fraud, abuse, lies, etc.

And none of these VVAW testimonials endorsed the product the White House/legislative/military/industrial/espionage complex was trying to sell at the time. (Read Butler's War Is A Racket for further elucidation.)

It turns out that lies (like the "Gulf of Tonkin 'Incident',&quot , bald-faced lies and body counts actually do work, at least for a time. The lies about the Kennedy assassinations have survived to this day (but MLK Jr.'s assassination was solved in the case of King Survivors vs. Lloyd Jowers, op cit.). We should all hope, and help, to see the lies about 9/11 uncovered in our lifetimes.

[Catherina]

74. Read it whenevr you have timebut don't have any liguids near your keyboard when you do

It's a train-wreck masterpiece. Like pinning someone down when they can't find their blue links.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. I saved it

[KoKo]

97. So true....it's fascinating.

The weaseling.

[questionseverything]

3. ...

QUESTION: Okay. I’m sorry. But I didn’t realize people who were wanted on charges forfeited their right to speech – to free speech. I also didn’t realize that people who were not whistleblowers or not human rights activists, as you say he is not, that they forfeited their rights to speak, so I don’t understand why you’re disappointed with the Russians, but neither that – leave that aside for a second.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

4. This OP is basically a giant copy-paste with some bold font here and there?

Weird.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

5. Also, from the transcript these questioners...sound like complete a-holes

[blackspade]

16. How so?

They are actually doing their jobs as reporters for once.
They are supposed to be adversarial assholes.
But this happens so rarely that now citizens expect a lap-dog press.

Pretty sad.

[karynnj]

66. Actually at least Matt is doing an awful job if the goal was to get the State Department

positions and actions. Look at the long questions and the fact that he does not let her answer for more than 5 words.

I have watched press conferences, Senate hearings, and Sunday talk shows for over 40 years. The most effective are when the questioner asks a clear, concise question and allows the responder the time to answer the question - and then after the answer follows up with crisp, short questions on the parts of the question ignored.

Here, you have a reporter who is interested ONLY in his questions. I doubt there was ANYTHING the spokeswoman could have said that would have caused him to reconsider his preconceived opinion. He was as open to honest answers as Darrell Issa usually is on his committees. (As to whether there would have been full, honest answers, we don't know - he never gave her the chance to answer.)

[tkmorris]

18. Yes! How DARE they seek answers to legitimate questions!

If you're going to call someone an asshole (it's OK, you can type the word out) you might want to say something to justify such a conclusion. Otherwise it just sounds agenda driven.

[karynnj]

70. Well, there chance of getting answers would rise if they let her answer

As it is, I can conclude the reporter was beyond rude. I cannot conclude anything about how complete the answers would have been had the reporter allowed her to at least finish a full sentence before interrupting.

[JDPriestly]

22. No, they don't. They are members of the press, and if Snowden doesn't have the right to free

speech and assembly, then neither do the members of the press or any of us, and neither do we have the right to a free press.

This press conference shows how little respect our government has for our constitutional rights -- the most fundamental of our constitutional rights.

What is with the Obama administration? I'm so sorry to see this reaction on its part to a situation in which our NSA is utterly disregarding the Constitution.

You know what I am wondering after reading that exchange. What is the Obama administration still hiding? Why are they so afraid of Snowden?

Apparently this scandal does not end just with the surveillance. There must be something more that we don't know about. I can't imagine that there could be much worse.

Obama needs to distance himself from the human rights foes in his administration.

[HardTimes99]

65. Four words: "Tip of the iceberg" - nt

[JDPriestly]

142. Yes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. You mean...for doing their jobs?

It's adversarial you know.

[karynnj]

72. No - for not really allowing her to answer the questions

It is very possibly true that they would have disagreed with what the State Department's actions and positions were, but far more information would have been elicited had the reporter actually allowed her to answer completely - rather than repeatedly cutting her off before she could get more than a few words out.

The fact that you agree with the reporter and with Snowden should not make it impossible for you to see that he was using this press conference to make his points - not to genuinely get answers. To get answers, you have to allow the person to respond. (Yes I know this is an area where you have experience - but seriously wouldn't you think that allowing her to answer completely would get more information out and would allow him better quotes if the SD position was an issue? To me, there is little difference between this and the way Issa asks detailed questions and then cuts Democrats off.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. The fact that I cover pressers regularly

And have been adversarial has nothing to do with Snowden. They did their jobs for a change.

Do not go to my local paper. You will be shocked at how adversarial we got with former speaker Pelosi when this just broke.

We dared ask about violations of the fourth amendment. The dancing and prevarication was epic. Not quite to this level.

And this transcript is down the rabbit hole.

[karynnj]

84. As I said, I have no problem with the questions

and I have no problem with follow up - even repeating the same (unanswered) question multiple times, here I have a problem with the fact that she was not allowed to answer.

[whatchamacallit]

88. Mark Twain would most certainly disagree

[bobduca]

20. NEEDS MORE BLUE LINKS STAT

[bhikkhu]

8. All the interruptions make that painful to read

...one of the reasons I can't stand any of the RW shows where they interview people. If you don't let someone answer questions or form complete sentences, why bother to ask.

The gist I get is that Psaki wants the russians to turn Snowden over to face charges, instead of arranging meetings and events for him. The questioner takes that as wanting to violate his rights to free speech. At great length, this seems like the kind of interview where you finish up stupider than you started, rather than more informed.

[railsback]

13. Yeah, the questioning got REALLY stupid

Sad.

[JDPriestly]

25. Not stupid at all in my view. I thought it was for once a member of the press asking the right

questions.

[karynnj]

87. Wouldn't it then have been better to allow the answers as well? nt

[whatchamacallit]

89. It's painfully clear she had no answers

They're out on a limb with this.

[karynnj]

91. Actually, had he let her answer the questions, that MIGHT be true

but given that that he didn't - no that it is not clear.

[whatchamacallit]

92. I don't buy it

but if what you say is true, the administration should fire her.

[karynnj]

107. I seriously doubt they will fire her

(I actually have more problem with her claiming Kerry, home from a 2 week intensive trip was not on his boat - when she had no way to know anything non work related he was doing.)

I do think that she needs to learn how to handle people like that reporter. She needed to take control and suggest he let her answer the question or he would not be allowed to ask more questions. It still does not excuse his bullying.

[JDPriestly]

140. The answers were not really answers. They were evasive and irrelevant.

The journalist was for once doing his job.

[JDPriestly]

24. The Obama administration doesn't want Snowden to have the right to free speech.

They categorize what he says as propaganda. It take it that the journalist doing the interview is Matt Lauer and he points out that propaganda is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment right to free speech.

What in the world could be worse than Snowden has already revealed?

Apparently there is something because the Obama administration sounds desperate. What could it be?

Are members of the press targeted by the surveillance process? What could it be?

[KoKo]

98. We know they are targeted and that Senators and Congresscritters have been

targeted? What else could excuse the behavior of MSM, and our Dem Congress and Senators for the past decades?

It's McCarthy era on Steroids!

We've watched all our Democratic efforts be challenged no matter how hard we organized...after Stolen Election 2000 and with our Act Blue Efforts since then.

imho...Blackmail is what this NSA and Private Contractor surveillance is about and NOT keeping us safe from Terrorists.

It's too massive not to be targeting folks that Corporations, Wall Street and Other Interests like the Military, Koch Brothers and wealthy Media Owners like Ruppert Murdoch (already accused of spying in UK but got off and now buying up US Newspapers) want to have compromised to then use for their own ends.

They want Snowden badly along with Assange and Manning to show their power. Just like they are doing with Force Feeding and groin searching those in GITMO who are innocent of crimes they were accused of. It's POWER SHOW...and our whole Government is cowering from Black Mail and Corrupted beyond redemption.

But, there is PUSH BACK...from somewhere.

[JDPriestly]

139. +1000

[Whisp]

37. I couldn't read it either. It was like Chris Matthews asking the questions

and not letting the answers come, like what he is known for.

I didn't get this violation of free speech either. What the hell, is anyone going to put duct tape on Snowden's mouth? How is his speech violated...

Really Fox-like overall, And that's too bad because this could have been some valuable insight but instead it's a puzzle where you have to fit pieces of words together to make a complete sentence or frame of thought.

[treestar]

64. Agreed, questioner has an agenda

More like a cross examination (and a bullying one that would not be allowed in a court) than a good faith interview.

[JoePhilly]

90. Came to the same basic conclusion after reading all that nonsense.

What we learned is that

(1) The United States wants Russia to return Snowden so he can be arrested and stand trial.

(2) The United States prefers Russia to do #1, rather than to assist Snowden in a photo OP.

(3) The United States is disappointed that Russia helped Snowden hold a photo OP, after they (Russia) said they intended to remain neutral in this entire matter.

(4) It took a reporter interrupting the government's press person dozens of times for us to learn what seems obvious. That being, The US would prefer Russia hand over Snowden versus helping him hold photo OPs.

Wow ... shocking. I can see what all the fuss is about.

[noamnety]

9. Well, I read the whole thing.

I found it sort of fascinating, like not being able to turn away from a trainwreck. She is ... um ... remarkable.

[KoKo]

99. Definitely!

she is...

[idwiyo]

151. Very... Special...

[magellan]

10. Where were these tenacious reporters when Bush** was

...savaging the bill of rights????

That said, this was a clusterf*ck of a presser for State. They'd have to try hard to look worse.

[JDPriestly]

26. Took a long time, but it looks like what Snowden said and revealed woke them up to the simple

fact that if freedom of the speech and freedom of association can be denied a suspect, a person accused but not convicted of a crime, then freedom of press is also in jeopardy.

Someone finally got it.

[magellan]

29. I'm a cynic

I suspect it's only because a Dem is in office. The press hounded Clinton and his admin, went to sleep for 8 years under Bush**, and remarkably, have a fire lit under them again since Obama came to office.

This relentless kind of questioning should happen no matter who's in the WH.

I'm glad they locked onto this like a dog with a bone. But I really despair of the US press and have zero faith in their true agenda anymore.

[allin99]

31. What *is* with the press? It's embarrassing. (and beyond frustrating).

[JDPriestly]

48. We started a World Forum under Media, and we are going to try to catch some foreign views of

things.

Our press, our media is embarrassing. It is sold out, bought out and not at all independent from the corporates.

You can try Pacifica radio -- KPFK in Los Angeles. They have a website and broadcast their programs.

[JDPriestly]

50. Yes.

This relentless kind of questioning should happen no matter who's in the WH.

But I think that Snowden's desperation to get his story out drew a lot of attention to what he was saying. I now realize that others said this during the Bush era, but it didn't hit home with me.

I also think the press is beginning to realize what this program means for freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

As I stated before, I am particularly aware of the meaning of this because I was born during WWII, went to grade school with some refugees, traveled in Europe and then lived near the border of Eastern Europe in several places. I know how people are silenced. The government that silences them always justifies it by some external or internal threat. First comes the surveillance, then the control and then it is too late.

I don't think this is Obama's fault. I think this program was to some extent actually in place and to a great extent mapped out long before he was elected. I am disappointed that he hasn't stopped it, but he is just one man, and he is up against a huge, powerful, threatening and frightened machine.

Those of us who no longer work and who are not threat to anyone need to speak out and warn the young who have their lives before them. That is why I am speaking about it now. I think that the president and Congress could disable our program.

But then, the technology exists and does not belong to the US government. That is a very frightening thing. Someone private or some other government could just take the program over. That would be worse for us than anything.

This is a bit like the pot of the sorcerer's apprentice. It is boiling over, but it will take something extraordinary to stop it. This is not just about our country although we expect to have our rights protected by our government more than do people in some other countries.

I am suspicious that Russia and China also have similar, perhaps less "successful" programs -- as well, perhaps as the UK and maybe some other countries at least internally.

But we need to change the rules on the FISA court. The orders should be available for congressional scrutiny at any time, and members of Congress should be able to talk to the public about some of the details about what goes on in that court.

[karynnj]

75. I have no problem with relentless questioning - but it is important to allow answers to the

questions. Here the male reporter cut the female spokesperson off without allowing her to answer. I actually would like to know the answers to many of the questions and the reason I don't have them from this is that the reporter dominated the exchange. Imagine that he would have asked sharp, concise questions and actually let her answer.

[allin99]

82. i would have like to hear her been able to answer a couple of those...

most importantly, do you thnk they should not have done the meeting.

he sorta asked it then didn't let her finish or asked it and then somewhere else, and that was a very important question.

[JDPriestly]

141. He cut her off because she was avoiding answering his questions by speaking in broad generalities

and denying obvious truths.

[karynnj]

144. He started cutting her off with the first question

- you have no idea what her full answer would have been.

To me, this suggests that the reporter wanted the press conference, characterized by him, to be the story. Consider was there ANYTHING she could have said or done that would have made this a low key exchange of information? He came in outraged by what the Obama administration which to my eyes is simply responding to a serious, very tricky problem caused by a man who in essence is a rogue intelligence agent.

[JDPriestly]

145. There is no honest answer to his questions other than, yes, we are depriving Edward Snowden

of his constitutional right to free speech.

All it took was one word: "Yes." Whereas the administration spokeswoman answered with a word salad that meant nothing. "Yes." They are depriving Edward Snowden of his right to free speech, and if they want to, they may deprive him not only of his right to free speech but of his life. And all for speaking out about the government's violation of our constitutional rights.

And the real unspoken question was, "Are you depriving the press of the right inherent in the constitutional right to a free press by spying on our contacts with our sources?" And the only answer to that question is also "Yes."

In fact, the answer to the second question was given, perhaps correctly if you can trust the administration, when the government stated that the press will not be indicted as a co-conspirator in cases of leaks.

But, now the government is admitting to what I have said all along. The real point in this eavesdropping is to be able to propgandize us more effectively.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014537996

That is the point in collecting the metadata. The government can now direct its propaganda to the leaders of our social networks. The point in collecting the metadata is not to know what we are saying but who we are saying it to and who is talking to us. With that information, they can tailor their propaganda to us. Today government propaganda dissemination in our society is officially legal.

1984 is officially here.

[karynnj]

147. I disagree

The US did not deny him freedom of speech. Who stopped him from speaking? Who stopped him from speaking to anyone he wanted to speak to in the media? No one. Nor was there even an attempt to censor what he said. Was there an effort to prevent American media from covering anything he said? International media?

The fact is there are few people who were given more media platforms through which they could be heard.

If you are speaking of the consulate official who told the Russians that they thought the Human Rights event was propaganda, I assume they were asking Russia not to use this to embarrass the US. The fact is that those organizations have always placed Russia (and each of those Latin American countries) as far worse on human rights issues vs the US. No matter what Snowden says.

As to Snowden's life, all that has been said is that he has been charged with crimes - and it is very likely that he is guilty as he did precisely what was charged by his own admission. I doubt any carry a death penalty.

As to spying on the contacts of the press - that is a pretty unjustified charge - fa beyond what has been seen. The fact that all records are kept does not mean that all records are analyzed and the media intimidated.

[JDPriestly]

148. They already named a reporter as a co-conspirtor in espionage.

The Washington Post published an explosive story about the Justice Department's monitoring of James Rosen, a Fox News reporter based in Washington. Rosen allegedly spoke to Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department contractor, for a story about North Korea's nuclear program. The Justice Department charged Kim with violating the Espionage Act for his contact with Rosen.

Kim's case has already been condemned by critics of the White House's hyper-aggressive approach to leaks, but the details of the DOJ's tracking of Rosen have not been known until now. The Post's Ann E. Marimow laid out the intensity of that monitoring in her article:

The Justice Department used security badge access records to track the reporter’s comings and goings from the State Department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. They traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report. They obtained a search warrant for the reporter’s personal emails.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/james-rosen-justice-department-co-conspirator-obama_n_3305857.html

They have the metadata. They only have to subpoena the records of the contents of the communications.

Once they have the metadata, the contacts and whistleblowers are forced to leave the country in order to speak out about excesses or corruption in the government.

Snowden sees himself as a dissident, as a political refugee. It's a matter of the point of view you choose.

I met people from Eastern Europe who fled and who had worked for the intelligence in Eastern Europe. They were just ordinary-seeming people. I did not know them through any official link, just socially and based on religious affiliations. Should they have been pursued?

Snowden should be permitted to live in peace in an asylum country. We have given asylum to people who killed to make a political point. We are an asylum nation.

Snowden is a rare case of an American seeking asylum, but we should respect his right to do so. I don't know whether the people from Eastern Europe that I knew took any information or documents with them. I did not know them in any capacity that would have caused me to be interested in that.

[karynnj]

149. The Rosen story was a while ago and not related

to the NSA. Are you saying that the US should ignore people who pass confidential information?

[JDPriestly]

150. The USA should really protect whistleblowers.

But over and over we see that they don't. Remember the guy who blew the whistle on a bank in Switzerland. He was convicted. Remember the guy who blew the whistle on torture. He was convicted.

And several NSA whistleblowers have been harassed and had their lives ruined.

If we don't give real protection to whistleblowers and immunity from prosecution when appropriate not in the eyes of the Justice Department but perhaps of a truly objective, lay (unpaid) commission (say of former public defense attorneys) to whistleblowers, we are protecting corruption and crime within our government.

I think that Snowden did a very brave thing. It is easy to nit-pick and criticize, but it took a lot of courage to do what he did.

Remember, a couple of senators warned that the FISA system was overstepping before Snowden stepped forward. So, his conduct is not unwarranted. The evidence strongly supports the claim that there have been serious abuses.

I do not blame Obama. The NSA has been a growing problem since the post-WWII period. Like any bureaucracy, they have to justify their existence. And they want an ever bigger budget. It's sad, but that is the way bureaucracies, whether in the government or in the private sector work.

Another huge problem with our intelligence services is that they, perhaps necessarily, employ private contractors and are closely aligned with private corporations. That means that their employees enjoy fewer protections than they would if they were government civil service employees. It also means that it is harder for Congress to do the oversight it needs to do, and it also means that we citizens have a harder time getting recourse if they violate our constitutional rights. In fact it makes it harder for us to know whether they violate our rights.

I think that any government contractor should be required to respect the constitutional rights of any people who deal with it or are employed by it.

[Catherina]

44. Yes. Loud and clear too.

I don't understand how she was even able to say that with a straight face. A propaganda platform with activists! I expected so much better after all the hoopla over constitutional law.

[allin99]

55. that was bizarre. and what is this talking point supposed to mean..

what is the propaganda they're accusing him of trying spread. lol.

[nashville_brook]

12. so glad the press isn't accepting the spin at face value

quite unlike most official pressers.

[kardonb]

21. press ?

just looking to fill the pages , thats all . Besides , that little snitch is in Russia now , and there is no free speech there , just Siberia waiting for him .

[KoKo]

100. You still live in the Cold War Era?

Siberia is way back...and much has changed in the world since then.

[blackspade]

15. Thanks for posting

An excellent example of government spokesperson double-speak.

[grasswire]

17. wow, that reporter is a bulldog!

So, new rules of free speech, apparently. Not for those accused of crimes.

[Catherina]

54. Agreed. Matthew Lee, AP n/t

[allin99]

56. is he around much? also, when will the u.s. be asked about...

grounding morales plane?

and any idea who the female was that was also questioning about the "propaganda platform"?

[Catherina]

68. They covered Morales plane when they came back from the 4th of July long weekend

It was a whole lot of nothing and evasion

The female is Elise Labott from CNN, foreign correspondent. I'll be looking out for her lol

[allin99]

80. but that was earlier before..

all the other countries finally came out and said, yes, we did it,we're sorry, it was the US who told us he was on board.

So now that the u.s. is outted, someone should ask them.

and how bad does it suck that there latin america is saying 'we're asking you to tell us exactly what happened' and not only does the u.s. blow them off but then says we'll fuck you up if you taken snowden in. it makes me so damn sour on us right now.

[allin99]

23. wow. thanks for posting that. It's also awesome on video...

http://video.state.gov/en/video/2542356307001

impressed with the journalists.

[Catherina]

43. Thanks. I had a heck of a time watching your link last night

The train wreck is was just as appalling in technicolor lol. The youtube is up now with the Snowden part starting at minute 2:15 and going off the rails from there.

[KoKo]

101. Thanks! Some DU'ers might find the interview VIDEO easier than the read

for attention span. And...it's so good to see the faces, answers and the nuances in "real time."

[NuclearDem]

27. THAT is how a journalist works.

[allin99]

30. Will we ever see them again? I almost wonder...

how that happened. i'm tempted to give a 'lol', but it's just damn sad. I wish those journalists would question them on a whole lotta shit. #frustrating. At very least taking down Morales plane. they need to answer to that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Ms. Psaki needs to repeat CYA101 and read "Weasal Words and Their Uses" again.

[Enthusiast]

32. Kicked and Recommended! nt

[delrem]

33. Thank you, because it's unbelievable in any ordinary sense.

Except that it is fact.

[Laelth]

34. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[byeya]

35. I read it and thanks for posting it. I say screw Kerry and the horse he rode in on.

I see we have a new manner of showing disrespect for an important post: It's too long! My lips got chapped!

Again, thanks. I would not have seen it otherwise.

[Fumesucker]

116. Nice snark there

"My lips got chapped"

[bemildred]

36. Priceless.

You want to know what we mean by "in the bubble"? That is what "in the bubble" means.

Deer in the headlights.

[Catherina]

42. I'm glad you guys thought so too.

I couldn't stop watching, as noamnety put it, this trainwreck. And the irony of making those statements from the official propaganda platform was mind-blowing lol.

[bemildred]

47. That is the problem with up-is-down propaganda.

Pretty soon you find you have rubbished your language to the point where you just can't think at all, you no longer make sense and you no longer sound like you are making sense.

The Gov't is trying to enforce it's framing of the situation, but poorly, I would say, it jars too much with the facts.

[Catherina]

49. It's totally cringeworthy. You almost want to help them because it's so bad n/t

[99Forever]

39. Weasel words.

The Obama Administration's strong suit.

[warrant46]

40. Kind of looks like Bush 43 and his handlers deflecting questions

[99Forever]

41. It's what they specialize in.

Conning We the People.

Seems to work exceedingly well on the gullible too.

[warrant46]

114. The sheep--- being made in an education system near you

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. It takes this full transcript to show IMPRESSIVE this reporter was

That was one dogged and determined questioner. That is how reporters are supposed to behave but virtually never do anymore. The norm is one question followed by an evasion followed by one follow up question followed by the same evasion and then just change the subject. In the current media climate this exhange was AMAZING. It's sad how accustomed we have become to no one having to really answer a direct question anymore.

[Catherina]

53. That's precisely why I didn't snip it. I tried but it took away the full effect

I was so impressed I had to find out who those reporters are- Matthew Lee, AP (who did most of the questioning) and Elise Labott, CNN. I'm looking forward to more of their questioning, on anything really, because of the qualities you stated.

[ProSense]

46. My favorite part:

MS. PSAKI: -- because I think it’s important. He’s not a whistleblower. He’s not a human rights activist. He’s wanted in a series of serious criminal charges brought in the eastern district of Virginia and the United States.

Carney responds to question about Snowden meeting with human rights groups.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023238115

[limpyhobbler]

52. K&R this is unreal. nt

[allin99]

57. Check out the video, it's in post #43

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. The reactions here are telling

[Ichingcarpenter]

60. "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.

John Kerry representing Vietnamese Veterans Against the War at a protest in Washington, D.C., April 20-21, 1971 (Photo: Library of Congress, LC-U9-24273)






?w=620

Snowden at human rights Meeting. conference.










Recent State Department briefing.


QUESTION: You don’t think that he should have a forum? Has he – he’s forfeited his right to freedom of speech as well?


MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, Mr. Snowden – : Our concern here is that he’s been provided this opportunity to speak in a propaganda platform

[Catherina]

69. How soon we forget. The ironies are endless n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

85. I posted it earlier today

the comments are interesting.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023240660

[KoKo]

103. Your Post at the Link is a MUST SEE.....

The contrast... Of Then and Now...

"Oh what a tangled web we weave ...when first we practice to Deceive."

A Fallen Hero? A Compromised Hero? A Hero who took advantage of a "Youthful Transgression" to further their career? Or...a Misguided Fool/Tool?

[Catherina]

130. Just went and rec'd

and posted a video with short extracts.

[HardTimes99]

61. I'll bet the U.S. Government did threaten Amnesty Intl and HRW with

reprisals, given Psaki's disgraceful non-denial denial. If I were a journalist covering this beat, that's the thread I'd start tugging at. To wit, is the U.S. government now going after the very human rights organizaitons with whom it has found it convenient in the past to make common cause?

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. The Brits did when echelon was exposed

So I am betting on it too

[Catherina]

73. It's pretty clear since HRW normally treats the US with deference and kid gloves

It's a real surprise that the HRW rep in Moscow not only wouldn't back down on this but she put it up on her blog. I wonder how much of it has to do with courage being contagious as Greenwald put it in regards to Ed Snowden.

[Jefferson23]

71. They're not prepared for any of this type of questioning, are they? Stunning. K&R and bookmarked.

Thank you, Catherina.

[Catherina]

77. Our governments entire reaction to the Snowden Affair has been embarrassing

It's like they thought some goodwill and slick charm would carry them through and can't understand no one's buying it anymore.

Now it's just *deer-in-the-headlights*.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

You're welcome, Jefferson23.

[carolinayellowdog]

94. embarrassing but perversely comforting to see the incompetence of the anti-Snowden PR

If the absolute triumph of Total Global Surveillance was part of an evil conspiracy by Democrats and or Republicans, we'd be totally up shit creek. But instead it seems to be something the parties went along with supporting without having any idea of just what all it entailed. They've stumbled into it but cannot explain it let alone defend it and have been caught flat-footed. The American public has been much wiser than either party in its appraisal of Snowden, I think, and more aligned with global opinion.

[Catherina]

129. +1 n/t

[WillyT]

79. K & R !!!

[temmer]

86. This is DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

Very interesting. Thank you, Catherina!

So there's still hope humanity will prevail.

[xiamiam]

93. Propaganda? That's the WH position? propaganda platform? that's insane

thanks for posting...its mind boggling that she is saying the Russians should not have assisted with the meeting, that what he said is propaganda? What is propaganda about his meeting with human rights groups? What? What did he say that even has anything to do with propaganda? and since it was propaganda according to the WH, the Russians should not have allowed him the right to hold the meeting or speak? Geez louise.. Forget about her deer in the headlight arrogance ( if its possible to combine the two, she did), whomever came up with the talking points she kept referring to is a moron. Its just crazy and shows the exact way they have dumbed down America, ideas that people say on tv somehow get accepted as normal and ok. This is how torture started in the media. Soon enough there were people debating on national tv whether torture was a good or bad idea and legal? I'll never forget or forgive that. And now, what they are trying to pull is bs. Good for the journalists who made her repeat her 5 talking points over and over...even though there is nothing in all of those points that makes logical sense in a democracy. Amazing.

[KoKo]

105. +1

[woo me with science]

95. That is unfathomably disturbing.

That is the creepiest, most outrageous performance by our government that I have ever seen. She essentially demonstrated that the US will not hesitate to try to trash the Constitutional protections of a whistleblower through intimidation.

But what a shock to the senses to see actual journalism in action, calling out the bullshit and the hypocrisy. Huge, huge kudos to this reporter, who had better stay away from small planes and cars with OnStar.

[allin99]

96. Does anyone know what she meant by "propoganda", what she was referring to?

[Eric J in MN]

153. Here is Edward Snowden's statement from Moscow.

You can decide if it's propaganda.

Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone’s communications at any time. That is the power to change people’s fates.

It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.

I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.

That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.

Since that time, the government and intelligence services of the United States of America have attempted to make an example of me, a warning to all others who might speak out as I have. I have been made stateless and hounded for my act of political expression. The United States Government has placed me on no-fly lists. It demanded Hong Kong return me outside of the framework of its laws, in direct violation of the principle of non-refoulement – the Law of Nations. It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president’s plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum.

Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.

I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future. With, for example, the grant of asylum provided by Venezuela’s President Maduro, my asylee status is now formal, and no state has a basis by which to limit or interfere with my right to enjoy that asylum. As we have seen, however, some governments in Western European and North American states have demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law, and this behavior persists today. This unlawful threat makes it impossible for me to travel to Latin America and enjoy the asylum granted there in accordance with our shared rights.

This willingness by powerful states to act extra-legally represents a threat to all of us, and must not be allowed to succeed. Accordingly, I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted. I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably.

If you have any questions, I will answer what I can.

Thank you.

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

[allin99]

154. so she was referring to him speaking out against the u.s...

as propoganda? that is absolutely hilarious.

.

[Eric J in MN]

155. Yes, usually "propaganda" refers to a government promoting itself. NT

NT

[MotherPetrie]

102. K&R

[Waiting For Everyman]

104. That is a whole lot of dissembling and stonewalling.

What a very determined reporter, kudos to "Matt".

[arely staircase]

106. Mr. Psaki made some very good points.

Among them:

"He’s not a whistleblower. He’s not a human rights activist. He’s wanted in a series of serious criminal charges brought in the eastern district of Virginia and the United States."

Hopefully he will be brought to justice very soon.

[Warren Stupidity]

118. That was her rational for why he should not have free speech.

It is an authoritarian statement.

[arely staircase]

119. May Mr. Snowden get to exercise his 6th Amendment rights very soon. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

121. Yeah I get that you desperately want him punished.

Why is another question. The motives of those of you demanding, figuratively in most cases, his head, are foreign to me. Then again I grew up in an era when protest and dissent and anti-authoritarianism were much more common than they are now.

[arely staircase]

122. Justice for Snowden!

That is what I want.

[Spider Jerusalem]

123. The USA does not have an extradition treaty with Russia.

And those countries with which the USA does have extradition treaties have exemptions for political offences; Snowden is wanted on charges of espionage. Espionage is regarded as a political offence. See for instance the following:

The "pure" political offense is customarily directed against the government. It has been described by one authority as constituting" [A] subjective threat to a political ideology or its supporting structures without any of the elements of a common crime. It is labeled a 'crime' because the interest sought to be protected is the sovereign."'"

These "pure" political crimes have usually been limited to treason, sedition and espionage.3

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2184&context=mulr

Therefore any country from which Snowden's extradition on charges of espionage is sought is perfectly justified in refusing such a request under customary international law.

[sabrina 1]

108. All that to say that 'we believe in free speech except when we don't'.

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

We believe, of course, broadly in free speech

Great questions from the reporter. If only our elected officials were subjected to this kind of questioning right here in the US. I also love that the reporter pointed that public opinion is now on Snowden's side.

And the response was essentially 'who cares about the public'.

[allin99]

161. that "broadly" cracked me up.

[Rex]

113. So the USA is okay with free speech, up until the point you piss them off

then they say you have no right to free speech? Ya, that's about the size of it. Just when I don't think it can get any more embarrassing for the State. I read this, wow they really are trying to make up all shut up and sit down. OWS really comes to mind over this.

[Catherina]

128. OWS is a great example of that. Another favorite are the free speech zones

[Fumesucker]

117. Ari Fleischer is turning green with envy n/t

[Liberal_Dog]

124. K & R

This is an enlightening post.

[Hydra]

125. Holy Fuck...

They said it...right out loud.

The Constitution is negotiable. We determine what rights you have.

Rule of law is...nonexistant.

Pardon me while I get my jaw off the floor.

[Catherina]

126. That's it in a nutshell n/t

[Demo_Chris]

132. Obama has already said as much with killing Americans

Any time, any place, for any reasons at all, at the President's whim. No congress, no judges or courts, no questions asked or answered.

[Hydra]

135. I totally agree since the Presidental power to assassinate is beyond the law

I'm just stunned that they just put it out there like that. Equivalent to GWB's comment about "A goddamn piece of paper" but done as an official statement.

A sign of even worse things coming.

[Demo_Chris]

138. Which is why so many of us freaked over Obama's position on this...

The government has gone totally out of control.

[Demo_Chris]

131. Wow! Excellent reporting, great post, and horrifying content. nt

[Savannahmann]

133. Arrogance

Astonishing. What does Snowden have. Pictures of all of us Naked?

[Catherina]

134. Just thinking about your question...

They don't even know what he has. They have no idea! Remember when Feinstein was saying it was just about 200 documents? And trying to brush off what he revealed as unimportant stuff? Then we find out Greenwald alone has thousands, not hundreds.

And master hacker that he was, they don't have any idea what he accessed. They don't have any idea. They're all quaking in their boots. I wonder right along with you.

[Hydra]

136. And the fact that they DON'T know what he has

Proves his claim that he had full access to everything. Otherwise they'd have a list of all of the possible documents he could have from his section of the network.

[snooper2]

157. I love having you on DU...your posts give me the

actually, ROFLMFAO I need every morning---


"Master Hacker" thanks!

[Catherina]

163. You need to catch up instead of ROFLing like a blue link wonder

WTF are you ROFLing about? It doesn't do you any favors.

It was clear from the beginning this guys was a hacker. One of the things that bothered him so much was that when they'd hack into hospitals, critical systems would crash if they made a mistake.

For anyone not too bright to catch that part, or catch it from his posts on Ars Technica, the NYT spelled it out

Résumé Shows Snowden Honed Hacking Skills
By CHRISTOPHER DREW and SCOTT SHANE
Published: July 4, 2013

In 2010, while working for a National Security Agency contractor, Edward J. Snowden learned to be a hacker.

He took a course that trains security professionals to think like hackers and understand their techniques, all with the intent of turning out “certified ethical hackers” who can better defend their employers’ networks.

But the certification, listed on a résumé that Mr. Snowden later prepared, would also have given him some of the skills he needed to rummage undetected through N.S.A. computer systems and gather the highly classified surveillance documents that he leaked last month, security experts say.

Mr. Snowden’s résumé, which has not been made public and was described by people who have seen it, provides a new picture of how his skills and responsibilities expanded while he worked as an intelligence contractor. Although federal officials offered only a vague description of him as a “systems administrator,” the résumé suggests that he had transformed himself into the kind of cybersecurity expert the N.S.A. is desperate to recruit, making his decision to release the documents even more embarrassing to the agency.

“If he’s looking inside U.S. government networks for foreign intrusions, he might have very broad access,” said James A. Lewis, a computer security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The hacker got into the storeroom.”

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/us/resume-shows-snowden-honed-hacking-skills.html

Posts like your last one just give me

[snooper2]

164. LOL, right, he was a low level IT twerp who got his hands on some documents

I'm sure the NSA knows exactly what and how he did it...


Still waiting on Snowy and Green to release something we didn't already know---

Oh wait, they did, 117K current surveillance targets. You stop making phone calls yet?

[Catherina]

165. Of course you do. n/t

[snooper2]

167. course I do what?

I'm smart enough not to do this LOL

&nofeather=True

Real World Problems

[xchrom]

137. du rec.

[DirkGently]

143. Yikes. n/t

[TeeYiYi]

152. k+r ..nt

TYY

[Catherina]

158. Too cool! I can't believe it's been tweeted 234 times and liked like that on FB. Thank you n/t

[Catherina]

162. Cool! Make some more room under the bus lol. I'm glad people are taking this seriously

John CusackVerified account ?@johncusack

Sick RT @ggreenwald Wow - inside the mind of the State Department: not a pretty picture http://democraticunderground.com/10023239657

https://twitter.com/johncusack/status/357143720992317442

Thank you Seaglass

[Catherina]

160. And tweeted it too lol

Glenn Greenwald ?@ggreenwald 1h

Wow - inside the mind of the State Department: not a pretty picture http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023239657
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/357138060548390912

Glenn Greenwald ?@ggreenwald 1h

Consensus guess about who asked these truly great questions was AP's Matt Lee, though one person guessed Matt Lauer http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023239657
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/357139549241081856

[snooper2]

168. Good, maybe Greenwald will read this-

Dump all the documents dude...

Come on, Snowy said he could tap anyone's call "real time"....Dump the documents to prove it! (So I can prove you wrong again)

All data for EVERYBODY collected! pretty grandiose statements. Collecting all our data...Really? Out of curiosity do the have blade servers dedicated for storing just ICMP?

So, come on, dump everything so we can read it all. Either you have it or you don't. We don't want your second hand word from what "you" read. Give us the raw data to look at. Your the man right? You can do it!

[MelungeonWoman]

166. Whoa.

Thanks to Mr. Lee for his tenacity.

[allin99]

169. Check out the video...

it is quite amusing.

Post#43.

[KoKo]

172. Link to VIDEO: http://video.state.gov/en/video/2542356307001

Definitely worth a watch even if you read the transcript.

http://video.state.gov/en/video/2542356307001

[allin99]

173. agree.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

170. Short answer is:

"No, we don't believe in Snowden's right to free speech, especially since it makes us look bad."

[allin99]

175. and then it's propaganda that must be silenced. lol

[Fantastic Anarchist]

176. Propaganda vs. propaganda.

Silence, you insolent bastards!!

[woo me with science]

174. Keep this kicked.

Outrageous demonstration of what our government has become.

[KoKo]

177. One of the Most Important Posts I've Seen on DU in Years...AP Reporter Strikes Back!

It is an excellent Read or the VIDEO posted later in the thread.

Again...Thank You, Catherina!

[Catherina]

178. Thank you Koko! I didn't expect it to make this much of an impression

but I'm glad it has. That briefing says more about our hypocrisy than most people have the courage to face. I'm happy so many people appreciate the of this briefing.

[woo me with science]

179. Kick

[woo me with science]

180. kick

[sandieg]

182. Message deleted by DU the Administrators