What Did Trump Promise A Foreign Leader - And Why Is He Trying To Hide It From Congress?

You have probably heard about the latest Trump administration scandal. On a call to a foreign leader (likely Putin), Trump made a promise. That promise troubled an official in the intelligence community so much that he properly filed a whistleblower report.

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson found the report determined the complaint was credible and of "urgent concern" (which would require its reporting to Congress). He forwarded the complaint to Joseph Maguire (acting director of national intelligence).

Maguire, after conferring with the Justice Department (and probably the White House) is now refusing to turn over the complaint to Congress -- even though the seven day time limit to do so has expired. He did meet in secret with a congressional committee, but refused to turn over the complaint or to even tell them what it contained.

In other words, he's breaking the law -- probably on orders from the White House.

What did Trump promise that foreign leader? Would it be damaging to this country or our allies? Or just embarrassing to Trump?

This is just one more example of Trump flouting the law, and refusing to honor the Constitution's division of power. He thinks he can do whatever he wants, and refuse any oversight from Congress when questioned. He's not acting like a president. He's trying to rule like a dictator!

Here's what the editorial board of The Washington Post says:

A NEW dispute has arisen between Congress and the Trump administration over a whistleblower complaint from within the intelligence community. By law, it should be shared with Congress, but the administration is refusing to do so. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) is entirely correct to insist that the administration follow the law. He should pursue the matter until it does.

According to Mr. Schiff, on Aug. 12 a whistleblower within the intelligence community filed a complaint that met the legal description of a disclosure involving a “serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency” related to funding, administration or operation of classified intelligence activity. Neither the subject of the complaint nor the whistleblower’s agency has been disclosed, but the complaint was deemed of “urgent concern” by the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson.

Mr. Atkinson sent it to Joseph Maguire, acting director of national intelligence. According to the congressman, a preliminary review by the inspector general determined that “there are reasonable grounds to believe” the information “is credible.” So far, this is how the system is supposed to work under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 and subsequent presidential directives and laws. Mr. Maguire, the law says, “shall” forward such a whistleblower complaint to the congressional intelligence committees within seven days.

So far, that hasn’t happened. Mr. Schiff says the intelligence community’s explanation to him is that the complaint “concerns conduct by someone outside of the Intelligence Community” involving “confidential and potentially privileged communications.” The congressman says he thinks the intelligence community may be covering up misconduct involving the White House or the president. We don’t know. But Mr. Schiff says this is the first time he’s aware of that a director of national intelligence has overruled the inspector general and concealed a whistleblower complaint, for which the director has “neither the legal authority nor the discretion.” And that is suspicious. Mr. Schiff has issued a subpoena and demanded action by Tuesday, or appearance at a public hearing Thursday.

Mr. Trump has made plain his distaste for congressional oversight. Elsewhere, he’s resisting disclosure of his tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee, although the law in that case also is straightforward. Oversight is a vital function of Congress, one that’s not always performed as strenuously as it should be. At the same time, the Supreme Court has ruled that it can’t lead to boundless inquisitions, or what Mr. Trump would call witch hunts. The court said the investigating must be limited to “a legitimate task of the Congress.”

In the case of the intelligence-community whistleblower, this clearly falls under the definition of a legitimate task of Congress. Someone inside the intelligence community decided to follow the rules and filed this complaint for a reason. Neither Mr. Maguire nor Mr. Trump should be able to conceal such information. They should respect and uphold the law, not contravene it.

Good News For An American Hero

If Edward Snowden hadn't revealed secret NSA files, the American people would still not know that the U.S. government was conducting a massive spying operation against its own citizens. He did the American people a big favor by exposing this illegal spying, and should be considered a hero by all freedom-loving people in this country.

But the federal government does not like to be embarrassed by having its illegal actions brought to light, and they will go to great lengths to severely punish anyone who exposes those misdeeds. And that is what they are trying to do to Snowden -- punish him severely for embarrassing the government.

The government claims he harmed this country by revealing the secret spying on American citizens. That is pure bull. Nobody was harmed -- just some bureaucrats embarrassed. Now they want to throw him in prison for most of the rest of his life. They claim he will get a fair trial, but if anyone believes that then I wish you would contact me -- because I have some nice oceanfront property in Amarillo that I'll give you a great deal on.

Fortunately, Snowden is not stupid enough to think he would be treated fairly by the federal government. He has fled the country, and is currently residing in Russia (the first country that offered him refuge). Some other countries have offered him permanent residence, but the U.S. and its European buddies have refused to let any plane carry him to any of those countries (mostly in South America).

Snowden's permission to stay in Russia expired on August 1st, and for a few days he was in limbo -- not knowing what would happen. But it has now been announced that the permission to stay in Russia (and continue his work in computer technology) has been extended for another three years. And if he chooses to do so, he can apply for Russian citizenship.

This is good news -- but hopefully, someday the U.S. government will come to its senses and allow him to come home without punishment, recognizing that he really has done a great favor to the citizens of this country.

(The caricature of Edward Snowden above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Green Party Says Snowden Couldn't Get A Fair Trial In U.S.

Most of the politicians in this country, of both parties, like to pose as though they are shocked about the massive spying on U.S. citizens done by the NSA, but the truth is that they are just embarrassed that the government (which they oversee) was caught doing it. If they were truly shocked at the spying and opposed to it, they would be lauding Edward Snowden as a hero instead of calling him a criminal and wanting to jail him. These politicians just want to string him up as an example to future whistleblowers who might be tempted to expose federal crimes to the people of this country. They say he would get a fair trial if he returned. I don't believe that -- and neither does the Green Party. Here's what Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Kevin Zeese had to say in an article released on July 8th:

Edward Snowden submitting to prosecution in the United States, would be like Alice going into the courtroom in Wonderland.

Alice stood before the King and Queen of Hearts who served as the judges. Knaves were chained on the ground before them. The jurors, Alice realizes are ‘stupid things.’ The first witness against her was the Mad Hatter who is as mad as the culture he represents. The guinea pigs who protest are immediately “suppressed” by having the mouths tied up and being put into a bag and sat on by the King so their protests cannot be heard. The most important evidence in the trial was secret, a poem for which the author is unknown and concludes:

For this must ever be a secret,
Kept from all the rest,
Between yourself and me.

Alice realized the courtroom; with the icons of a justice system – a judge, jury, witnesses – was really a sham that mocks a legitimate legal process.  To confirm her realization the King said after the meaningless secret poetry evidence, that it was “the most important piece of evidence” and “Let the jury consider their verdict.” The Queen retorts “No, no!  Sentence first; verdict afterwards.”

Last week former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined with the current Secretary of State John Kerry in urging Edward Snowden to come home and face prosecution. 

Clinton told The Guardian that he should “return knowing he would be held accountable and also able to present a defense.” When asked about whether he could really present a defense, Clinton said:

“In any case that I’m aware of as a former lawyer, he has a right to mount a defense. And he certainly has a right to launch both a legal defense and a public defense, which can of course affect the legal defense.”

In fact, under current U.S. law Snowden would face a criminal process with virtually no defense, a pre-ordained outcome and he would be silenced during the process. The law he would be charged under, the Espionage Act, provides for no real defense and the due process afforded would be inadequate resulting in an unfair trial and lengthy sentence.

On June 14th federal prosecutors in Alexandria, VA filed espionage charges against Edward Snowden. Snowden became the eighth person to be charged under the 1917 Espionage Act during the Obama presidency, more than double all previous presidents combined. As a result there is recent experience with how these cases are prosecuted. Under the three current felony charges Snowden faces up to 30 years in prison. The prosecutors could add additional charges when Snowden is indicted.

Recent court decisions, including the prosecution of Chelsea Manning, have interpreted the Espionage Act to not to require proof that the person accused intended to commit espionage. If the person intended to blow the whistle on illegal activity and was acting in the public interest, as in the case of Snowden and the NSA, that would not be a defense.

It would not be relevant that former U.S. intelligence officials had given Snowden an award for integrity in intelligence. The fact that a judge on the FISA surveillance court, David Saylor, acknowledged “The unauthorized disclosure . . . have engendered considerable public interest and debate…” Even the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, acknowledged “I think it’s clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.” And, that the reporters who worked with Snowden to publish the documents won the top journalism award, the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. All of this would not be relevant under the Espionage Act.

The jury would not be allowed to consider how the leaks were a public service, not espionage. Almost certainly, the judge in Snowden’s prosecution would not allow any arguments along those lines and exclude all such evidence. Unlike other criminal laws violation of the Espionage Act is a strict liability law -- there is no defense for a whistleblower who has admitted they leaked the documents, i.e. the fact of the leak is espionage even if the intent was to serve the public interest by exposing crimes by the government. As a result, even though Snowden was not a spy committing espionage -- in the traditional sense of the term as someone spying for a foreign enemy -- the law could still be applied to him. 

In addition, rather than due process allowing a legitimate defense as is required by the Constitution, his trial would rely on warped procedures that actually prevent the basics of a fair trial. It is very likely that Snowden would be denied bail and held in prison pending trial despite the constitution providing for a right to bail, especially since he fled the nation and sought political asylum in a foreign country. Being incarcerated pending trial makes mounting a defense very difficult and would result in communication with the public and the media being impossible. Clinton has it backward, unlike his current situation, where Snowden can explain himself and the importance of documents being released, he would be silenced.

As in the Manning and other national security cases, it is likely that much of the evidence in the trial will be classified as secret which will limit the number of people who can see it and result in the public and the media not being shown all of the evidence, despite the Constitution requiring a public trial.  As in the case of Chelsea Manning, large portions of the trial will be out of public view because the government will claim national security secrets will be breached if the trial were a completely public trial. This will keep the public uninformed of the real nature of the facts and in the dark when the inevitable conviction results. Pundits supporting the security state will say “well, you can’t criticize the verdict because you do not know what the judge and jury knew; you did not see all the evidence.”

Finally, the trial will be held in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. This is where the grand jury has been based.  The jurisdiction of this court includes the Pentagon, Pentagon City, Crystal City and Rosslyn, areas concentrated with military, security and intelligence contractors as well as people working in the Pentagon and their relatives. The Alexandria federal court is known to be very much a pro-security state court in part because of the make-up of the jury pool. Is this the “impartial jury” the Constitution envisions?  Thus, it will be impossible for Snowden to get a fair trial. 

Why should Snowden submit to a judicial process that would so unfair and obviously unjust? Surely Clinton, a former lawyer, and Kerry are well aware that Snowden would be prosecuted in a phony Kangaroo court where the deck would be stacked against him and the process would be unfair, so their comments are false rhetoric, like Kerry calling on Snowden to “man-up,” comments designed to confuse the public. They know that what they are suggesting would result in Snowden facing an unfair prosecution with a pre-ordained conviction resulting in a lengthy sentence.

Should Edward Snowden submit to this mocking of legitimate trials, where there is no real due process or any opportunity to prove his innocence? That is what U.S. security state trials have become. A sham of justice, something that Edward Snowden should never submit to.

Green Party Supports New Group To Help Whistleblowers

A new group has been founded called the Courage Foundation. It's purpose is to help defend whistleblowers. Here is the statement issued by Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Kevin Zeese on June 12th:

On June 11th in Berlin, a new international organization was announced whose purpose is to (1) defend whistleblowers when they are facing prosecution; and (2) defend the public’s right to know.

The right to know is recognized in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and consistent with the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The importance of the right to know has become more widely understood thanks to recent whistleblowers, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. They exposed harsh secrets about the way the US government behaves in its militaristic foreign policy and how intelligence agencies conduct dragnet surveillance of communications. As Courage says in its mission statement:

“When powerful institutions retreat into secrecy, they prevent proper accountability and oversight. Whistleblowers become the public’s regulators of last resort. Without them, we would know far less about international diplomacy, offshore banking or the excesses of the War on Terror.

“Because whistleblowers are a vital link in the chain, they are also vulnerable. Courage upholds the principle of public access by aiding the whistleblowers who make it possible, forcing their cases into the public sphere and funding effective defences in the courtroom.”

I joined the advisory board of the Courage Foundation because shining a light on government secrets will educate people to change the direction of government for the better. There is no question that secrecy has cost more lives than transparency and that secrecy has led to policy blunders that are often illegal, unethical and counterproductive. Our right to know is foundational to a free and democratic society.

The Acting Director of Courage is Sarah Harrison. She is the Wikileaks Investigation Editor and escorted Edward Snowden to political asylum in Russia.  She explained her support for Snowden and work at Courage in a video which she describes how “Snowden and other whistleblowers do this world a great service” and then are threatened by the United States government with decades in prison for merely exposing truths that we should be aware of.  She believes Snowden and other whistleblowers should be protected, indeed the first mission of Courage it to raise money for their defense.  She believes the people should “show another example” and stand with whistleblowers like Snowden.

Harrison has shown the kind of courage that we hope to see in many by putting her liberty on the line in order to help protect Edward Snowden. Other advisory board members of Courage have also risked everything for the public’s right to know. Daniel Ellsberg, the well-known Vietnam War whistleblower who leaked the Pentagon Papers is one example. Ellsberg has described Snowden as "a great hero. He's the kind of person that makes me proud." He recalls how “everything that was said about Snowden – that he is a traitor and a spy – was said about me.”

In a video to the Courage Foundation opening announcement Edward Snowden described how we need to confront surveillance because in order to participate in a democratic government we need to know “what the government is doing to us and what they are doing in our name.”  It the people are not informed about what the government is doing “the government becomes a force unto itself not a public servant but a public master.”  Snowden believes that public officials who take illegal or unethical action must be held accountable.

Snowden goes on to say that since government is not protecting whistleblower we must say “we will protect them as a global society.” For him the Courage Foundation is “a new rapid response team for global democracy” saying now, when “we see someone facing unjustified retaliation for performing a public service we can rally to their defense.”

Glenn Greenwald explained his support for Courage and Edward Snowden saying that he is a journalist who relies on “brave individuals who come forward and blow the whistle on secret wrongdoing by those who wield great power.” He recognizes Snowden as “one of the bravest and most consequential, and whose rights are being threatened every day.”

Law professor Eben Moglen who directs the Software Freedom Law Center says he does this work and has joined the advisory board of Courage because “mass surveillance threatens democracy.” He points out how “for the last decade two vastly unwise administrations” have pursued these “procedures of totalitarianism on everyone, everywhere.” 

These dangerous dragnet surveillance tools have been developed in secret. He points out that “without Edward Snowden, democracy in the United States would have been severely wounded.”

Gavin MacFayden, who is a trustee of Courage and helped found the organization, is the Director of the Center for Investigative Journalism.  He describes Courage as “the most important single support organization for whistleblowers.” Also on the board of trustees for Courage are Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks and Barbora Bukovská, Senior Director for Law and Policy at Article 19.  Courage hosts the only legal defense fund endorsed by Edward Snowden and his lawyers. You can support Snowden’s legal defense here.

What kind of risks do whistleblowers take? Courage writes they face a range of consequences and reprisals including:

• Prosecution: state secrecy laws forbidding public interest defences and carrying heavy penalties
• Imprisonment: lengthy detention without trial, torturous conditions
• Financial: burden of extensive legal costs and the loss of income
• Personal: alienation, isolation, maligned reputation, threats against their lives
• Professional: employer retaliation, ranging from dismissal to blacklisting

Courage “prepares legal defense funds, lawyers and campaigns to defend whistleblowers in court and campaign for their freedom and protection. Courage will publicize any negative consequences imposed on these truthtellers and ensure their plight is not ignored in the press. If sufficiently funded and prepared, Courage can prevent the next whistleblower from becoming the next political prisoner.”

Right now, an immediate threat to Edward Snowden is his temporary asylum in Russia ends on July 31, 2014. Courage is seeking to have his political asylum extended or to have another country provide political protection to Snowden by showing worldwide support for him. People are being asked to submit photos saying they support Edward Snowden and saying what city they are from.  You can submit your photo here.

We can overcome the surveillance and other abuses of the security state, including the abusive dragnet searches of the US National Security Agency. Courage is an important vehicle for that effort.  One year after Edward Snowden’s historic action people are mobilizing. Popular Resistance was part of the Reset the Net campaign, which Edward Snowden supported, and which had an epic impact including changes made to improve Internet security that “will affect 3 billion emails each month, 500,000 users each month, 187 million blogs and 14.5 billion web pages.”

And, we are seeing more safe avenues for whistleblowers being created. SecureDrop, built by the Free Press Foundation out of the legacy of Aaron Swartz, is now being used by a variety of news outlets including The Guardian, New Yorker, ProPublica and The Intercept as well as a new non-profit, ExposeFacts.org. This builds on the excellent ongoing work of Wikileaks that makes it possible for whistleblowers to expose the truth safely.

More needs to be done. As Edward Snowden said in his message to Courage, “the level of success or failure depends on our solidarity.” We all need to take action to protect the privacy of our communications in the 21st Century. Edward Snowden showed us that we were under surveillance, now we must take concerted action to re-take our privacy and set the terms for free speech in the 21st Century.