How the U.S. House Can Disclose the Tantalizing Secret Memo About Surveillance

By Robert Willmann

On Monday, 29 January 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence met for a business meeting and voted on five agenda items or motions concerning classified executive session memoranda.  This is the tantalizing matter of conduct by one or more executive branch agencies of surveillance, perhaps of president-elect Donald Trump, campaign members, and others.  Also said to possibly be involved is the secret federal court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and maybe even the bawdy paper pushed during the presidential campaign by "former" (or current?) British MI6 agent Christopher Steele about Donald Trump and Russia.  Here are the agenda items and the votes on each one by committee members--

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf

The big one was item number four, which passed, and authorized the disclosure of one classified executive session memo.

Of equal interest is the fact that the U.S. Congress can declassify and make public a document or item that was deemed secret and not to be disclosed.  Buried in the 45 pages of fine print in the Rules of the House of Representatives is the language that is claimed to authorize the disclosure.  Rule 10 governs the organization of committees.  Section or clause 11 of Rule 10 deals with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  The good stuff describing the authority and procedure is on pdf pages 19 and 20 (document pages 15 and 16) of the rules, in parts 11(f) and 11(g).  You start near the bottom of the middle column with part "f" on pdf page 19 and go through part/clause 11(g)(2)(G) in the first column on pdf page 20--

https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules.house.gov/files/115/PDF/House-Rules-115.pdf

That Congress can decide what is classified secret and what is not, and can authorize disclosure, is self-evident from Article 1, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution:  "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives".  However, the House rules are not legislation.  I have not yet tried to find a law passed by Congress that creates this unilateral power to declassify material, but I assume that it does exist, or it certainly should.

The members of the House intelligence committee are listed here--

http://clerk.house.gov/committee_info/index.aspx?comcode=IG00

One little item of interest is that committee member Will Hurd (Repub. Texas, 23rd District) is a former CIA officer.  His Congressional district includes part of the San Antonio area.  According to the committee document cited above with the motions that were voted on, he participated in all of the votes except number four, the one that starts the process to try to disclose the memo to the public.  He did not vote "present", so he may have ducked out of the room for that one.  If he has a philosophical objection to disclosing material previously designated as classified, he may not be put on the spot as the deciding vote to disclose if the whole House has to vote on that question. If the Republicans have a surplus in their majority in the House, he might either not vote at all or make a symbolic "no" vote.

If the underlying material for the memo was submitted by the "executive branch" and the executive branch requests that it be kept secret, the committee notifies the president that the vote to disclose was made.

 

The committee itself can disclose the memo five days after it tells the president that it took a positive vote. The day of notice was probably yesterday. If so, the fifth day is Saturday, 3 February.

The memo could be released on 4 February, just in time for the Sunday morning talk shows, if the president does not notify the select committee personally in writing "that the President objects to the disclosure of such information, provides reasons therefor, and certifies that the threat to the national interest of the United States posed by the disclosure is of such gravity that it outweighs any public interest in the disclosure".

The operative phrase is "national interest" and not "national security".

If the president objects to disclosure, the whole House has to vote positively to reveal the memo. 

A person would do well to be cautious about how powerful the memo is, because all the buildup about it is like a striptease dancer in a burlesque show. The memo itself appears not to be the evidence from which it is derived. The Democrats in the House have produced their own memo allegedly based on the same material, and it most certainly says the opposite. The Democrats will then claim that the public cannot see the evidence on which it is based and draw its own conclusions, because that evidence has to remain "classified". 

In addition, the memo and its hype should not provide misdirection from all possible problems associated with the issue of surveillance, investigations, and politics. Look at this shiny object: the memo! the FISA court! the FBI application! the Christopher Steele paper! the Justice Department maneuvers! 

The problems involved are serious soap. This is not just the Department That Calls Itself Justice, the FBI, and a lurid paper from Christopher Steele likely used to get a surveillance warrant from the FISA court. Surveillance, wiretapping, and other clandestine activities may have been done illegally by other government agencies or private persons or organizations, or done by foreign governments such as Britain or Israel, and then handed off to the CIA, FBI, or other persons or organizations to be used politically within the U.S.  

Perhaps the cellular phones that are hand-held computers the candidates and their associates were happily using were illegally being activated as tracking and listening devices. No bugs need be planted.

You can see how difficult it is to try to have a memo declassified without even getting into revealing the claimed evidence underlying it.  The bad actors in this drama hide behind forms of governmental immunity and the concept of classified information, while continuing to be paid by the taxpayers.

But in the face of that, we withdraw permission to be defeated, and take one step at a time.

 

Comments

[Lee A. Arnold]

A few hours ago Sen. Thune the #3 Senate Republican urged the House Republicans to slow the release of Nunes' memo. He said Richard Burr & Senate Intel Committee should see it first, the Dem memo should come out simultaneously, & the FBI's warning should be considered.

[Jack]

FBI Warns Republican Memo Could Undermine Faith In Massive, Unaccountable Government Secret Agencies

https://politics.theonion.com/fbi-warns-republican-memo-could-undermine-faith-in-mass-1822639681

The Onion hits it out of the park!

[Jack]

Wow!

Look who all are coming out of the woodwork to denounce Nunes. Now we hear from Brennan. Yeah, let's have them all be unmasked for who they really are.

I had many fights with Congressional Dems over the years on national security matters. But I never witnessed the type of reckless partisan behavior I am now seeing from Nunes and House Republicans. Absence of moral and ethical leadership in WH is fueling this government crisis.

https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/959045265910091776

[Jack]

Now Comey chimes in. Is the gig gonna be up?

All should appreciate the FBI speaking up. I wish more of our leaders would. But take heart: American history shows that, in the long run, weasels and liars never hold the field, so long as good people stand up. Not a lot of schools or streets named for Joe McCarthy.

https://twitter.com/Comey/status/959197429156466689

[turcopolier]

Lee A Arnold

The FBI's self serving pleading has been heard. pl

[blue peacock]

Valissa

This piece is a good overview of the conspiracy.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/05/operation-condor-how-nsa-director-mike-rogers-saved-the-u-s-from-a-massive-constitutional-crisis/

Sundance, the author of the piece, has been following this story for a year or more and all the public information including interviews by the various parties and connecting the dots. Some will dismiss his analysis as he is definitely a Trump supporter. However, as Col. Lang has advised many a time, evaluate the information and the source separately.

Unfortunately there is no one that I have been able to uncover on the Democrat side who has analyzed all this public information and attempted to connect the dots in a different manner.

The Nunes memo which is expected to become public tomorrow should confirm what many have suspected, that the FISA application did include unverified elements from the Fusion GPS dossier which was opposition research work product paid for by the Clinton campaign. There are many murky issues surrounding that including the role of the FBI & DOJ.

There are four investigations going on. Nunes, Grassley, Goodlatte and DOJ IG Horowitz. All of them seem to be focused on potential malfeasance at the FBI & DOJ. Then there is Mueller, who is ostensibly investigating the alleged Russian intelligence operation to manipulate our election and the collusion of the Trump campaign with Russia. So far they have not leaked or released any information supporting both these allegations. Their indictments so far all have to do with process charges - lying to the FBI. And they have Manafort in their cross-hairs for money laundering. No one has yet to be charged for collusion with the Russians to steal the election.

[Anna]

Thank you. There are some interesting details emerging with regard to the US Congress education re Russia and with regard to the whole business of the ongoing sanctions against Russian Federation. A liar (and tax-dodger who denounced his US citizenship to save money) has been the main educational source for the congresspeople during production of the Magnitsky Act: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-01/meet-corrupt-billionaire-who-has-brought-about-new-cold-war
"William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS. … Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico.
Fusion GPS, which was involved in the research producing the Steele Dossier used to discredit Donald Trump, was also retained to provide investigative services relating to a lawsuit in New York City involving a Russian company called Prevezon. As information provided by Browder was the basis of the lawsuit, his company and business practices while in Russia became part of the investigation. Simmons maintained that Browder proved to be somewhat evasive and his accounts of his activities were inconsistent. He claimed never to visit the United States and not own property or do business there, all of which were untrue, to include his ownership through a shell company of a $10 million house in Aspen Colorado. He repeatedly ran away, literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under oath." https://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2015/02/10/browder-escapes-subpoena-attempt-after-daily-show-interview/
Per Simmons, in Russia, Browder used shell companies locally and also worldwide to avoid taxes and conceal ownership, suggesting that he was likely one of many corrupt businessmen operating in what was a wild west business environment."
Beautiful. The main agitator for Magnitsky Act happens to be a certified fraudster and a liar. https://www.thenation.com/article/why-is-the-media-ignoring-crucial-parts-of-the-simpson-testimony/

[Anna]

A sample of a congresswoman: https://www.rt.com/usa/417638-maxine-waters-russia-trump-nuclear/

[Valissa]

Blue, thanks for the Operation Condor explanation by Sundance. That was indeed very helpful for putting all the pieces together! I also read a couple of his most recent posts. I do not care that he is a Trump supporter. The evidence is presented logically and speaks for itself. And the behaviors of the Democrats on this issue makes it clear they know they are in trouble (like those guilty dog YouTube videos). They sound lame and that will be noticed, except for the strong partisans.

The memo has now been released. I think I need to go and buy some popcorn ;)

[Anna]

Paul Craig Roberts has posted a link to an article about Putin by Sharon Tennison: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/02/honest-assessment-putin/
"Like others who have had direct experience with this little known man, I’ve tried to no avail to avoid being labeled a “Putin apologist”. If one is even neutral about him, they are considered “soft on Putin” by pundits, news hounds and average citizens who get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC. I don’t pretend to be an expert, just a program developer in the USSR and Russia for the past 30 years. But during this time, I’ve have had far more direct, on-ground contact with Russians of all stripes across 11 time zones than any of the Western reporters or for that matter any of Washington’s officials."