![\"How](\"http:\/\/thehill.com\/sites\/default\/files\/styles\/thumb_small_article\/public\/blogs\/gettyimages-159856491_0.jpg?itok=OUtcKJxd\")
<\/div>\n\u00a9 Getty<\/h5>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\nSenator Chuck Schumer<\/a><\/span> and Congressman Adam Schiff<\/a><\/span> have both castigated Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, for his handling of the inquiry into Russia\u2019s interference in the 2016 presidential election. \u00a0They should think twice. \u00a0The issue that has recently seized Nunes is of vital importance to anyone who cares about fundamental civil liberties.<\/p>\nThe trail that Nunes is following will inevitably lead back to a particularly significant leak. \u00a0On Jan. 12, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported<\/a> that \u201caccording to a senior U.S. government official, (General Mike) Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29.\u201d<\/p>\nFrom Nunes\u2019s statements, it\u2019s clear that he suspects that this information came from NSA intercepts of Kislyak\u2019s phone. \u00a0An Obama official, probably in the White House, \u201cunmasked\u201d Flynn\u2019s name and passed it on to Ignatius.<\/p>\n
Regardless of how the government collected on Flynn, the leak was a felony and a violation of his civil rights. \u00a0But it was also a severe breach of the public trust. When I worked as an NSC staffer in the White House, 2005-2007, I read dozens of NSA surveillance reports every day. On the basis of my familiarity with this system, I strongly suspect that someone in the Obama White House blew a hole in the thin wall that prevents the government from using information collected from surveillance to destroy the lives of the citizens whose privacy it is pledged to protect.<\/p>\n
The leaking of Flynn\u2019s name was part of what can only be described as a White House campaign to hype the Russian threat and, at the same time, to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin\u2019s Manchurian candidate. \u00a0On Dec. 29, Obama announced<\/a> sanctions against Russia as retribution for its hacking activities. \u00a0From that date until Trump\u2019s inauguration, the White House aggressively pumped into the media two streams of information: one about Russian hacking; the other about Trump\u2019s Russia connection. In the hands of sympathetic reporters, the two streams blended into one.<\/p>\nA report that appeared the day after Obama announced the sanctions shows how. \u00a0On Dec. 30, the Washington Post reported<\/a> on a Russian effort to penetrate the electricity grid by hacking into a Vermont utility, Burlington Electric Department. \u00a0After noting the breach, the reporters offered a senior administration official to speculate on the Russians\u2019 motives. \u00a0Did they seek to crash the system, or just to probe it?<\/p>\nThis infrastructure hack, the story continued, was part of a broader hacking campaign that included intervention in the election. \u00a0The story then moved to Trump: \u201cHe\u2026has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite President Obama\u2019s suggestion that the approval for hacking came from the highest levels of the Kremlin.\u201d<\/p>\n
The national media mimicked the Post\u2019s reporting. \u00a0But there was a problem: the hack never happened<\/a>. \u00a0It was a false alarm \u2014 triggered, it eventually became clear, by Obama\u2019s hype.<\/p>\nOn Dec. 29, the DHS and FBI published<\/a> a report on Russian hacking, which showed the telltale signs of having been rushed to publication. \u00a0\u201cAt every level this report is a failure,\u201d said<\/a> cyber security expert Robert M. Lee. \u201cIt didn\u2019t do what it set out to do, and it didn\u2019t provide useful data. They\u2019re handing out bad information.\u201d<\/p>\nEspecially damaging were the hundreds of Internet addresses, supposedly linked to Russian hacking, that the report contained. \u00a0The FBI and DHS urged network administrators to load the addresses into their system defenses. \u00a0Some of the addresses, however, belong to platforms that are widely used by the public, including Yahoo servers. \u00a0At Burlington Electric, an unsuspecting network administrator dutifully loaded the addresses into the monitoring system of the utility\u2019s network. \u00a0When an employee checked his email, it registered on the system as if Russian hackers were trying to break in.<\/p>\n
While the White House was hyping the Russia threat, elements of the press showed a sudden interest in the infamous Steele dossier, which claimed<\/a> that Russian intelligence services had caught Trump in Moscow in highly compromising situations. \u00a0The dossier was opposition research paid for by Trump\u2019s political opponents, and it had circulated<\/a> for months among reporters covering the election. \u00a0Because it was based on anonymous sources and entirely unverifiable, however, no reputable news organization had dared to touch it.<\/p>\nWith a little help from the Obama White House, the dossier became fair game for reporters. \u00a0A government leak<\/a> let it be known that the intelligence community had briefed Trump on the dossier. \u00a0If the president-elect was discussing it with his intelligence briefers, so the reasoning went, perhaps there was something to it after all.<\/p>\nBy turning the dossier into hard news, that leak weaponized malicious gossip. The same is true of the Flynn-Kislyak leak. \u00a0Ignatius used the leak to deepen<\/a> speculation about collusion between Putin and Trump: \u201cWhat did Flynn say (to Kislyak),\u201d Ignatius asked, \u201cand did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?\u201d The mere fact that Flynn\u2019s conversations were being monitored deepened his appearance of guilt. \u00a0If he was innocent, why was the government monitoring him?<\/p>\nIt should not have been. \u00a0He had the right to talk to in private \u2014 even to a Russian ambassador. \u00a0Regardless of what one thinks about him or Trump or Putin, this leak should concern anyone who believes that we must erect a firewall between the national security state and our domestic politics. \u00a0The system that allowed it to happen must be reformed. \u00a0At stake is a core principle of our democracy: that elected representatives control the government, and not vice versa.<\/p>\n
Senator Chuck Schumer<\/a><\/span> and Congressman Adam Schiff<\/a><\/span> have both castigated Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, for his handling of the inquiry into Russia\u2019s interference in the 2016 presidential election. \u00a0They should think twice. \u00a0The issue that has recently seized Nunes is of vital importance to anyone who cares about fundamental civil liberties.<\/p>\n The trail that Nunes is following will inevitably lead back to a particularly significant leak. \u00a0On Jan. 12, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported<\/a> that \u201caccording to a senior U.S. government official, (General Mike) Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29.\u201d<\/p>\n From Nunes\u2019s statements, it\u2019s clear that he suspects that this information came from NSA intercepts of Kislyak\u2019s phone. \u00a0An Obama official, probably in the White House, \u201cunmasked\u201d Flynn\u2019s name and passed it on to Ignatius.<\/p>\n Regardless of how the government collected on Flynn, the leak was a felony and a violation of his civil rights. \u00a0But it was also a severe breach of the public trust. When I worked as an NSC staffer in the White House, 2005-2007, I read dozens of NSA surveillance reports every day. On the basis of my familiarity with this system, I strongly suspect that someone in the Obama White House blew a hole in the thin wall that prevents the government from using information collected from surveillance to destroy the lives of the citizens whose privacy it is pledged to protect.<\/p>\n The leaking of Flynn\u2019s name was part of what can only be described as a White House campaign to hype the Russian threat and, at the same time, to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin\u2019s Manchurian candidate. \u00a0On Dec. 29, Obama announced<\/a> sanctions against Russia as retribution for its hacking activities. \u00a0From that date until Trump\u2019s inauguration, the White House aggressively pumped into the media two streams of information: one about Russian hacking; the other about Trump\u2019s Russia connection. In the hands of sympathetic reporters, the two streams blended into one.<\/p>\n A report that appeared the day after Obama announced the sanctions shows how. \u00a0On Dec. 30, the Washington Post reported<\/a> on a Russian effort to penetrate the electricity grid by hacking into a Vermont utility, Burlington Electric Department. \u00a0After noting the breach, the reporters offered a senior administration official to speculate on the Russians\u2019 motives. \u00a0Did they seek to crash the system, or just to probe it?<\/p>\n This infrastructure hack, the story continued, was part of a broader hacking campaign that included intervention in the election. \u00a0The story then moved to Trump: \u201cHe\u2026has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite President Obama\u2019s suggestion that the approval for hacking came from the highest levels of the Kremlin.\u201d<\/p>\n The national media mimicked the Post\u2019s reporting. \u00a0But there was a problem: the hack never happened<\/a>. \u00a0It was a false alarm \u2014 triggered, it eventually became clear, by Obama\u2019s hype.<\/p>\n On Dec. 29, the DHS and FBI published<\/a> a report on Russian hacking, which showed the telltale signs of having been rushed to publication. \u00a0\u201cAt every level this report is a failure,\u201d said<\/a> cyber security expert Robert M. Lee. \u201cIt didn\u2019t do what it set out to do, and it didn\u2019t provide useful data. They\u2019re handing out bad information.\u201d<\/p>\n Especially damaging were the hundreds of Internet addresses, supposedly linked to Russian hacking, that the report contained. \u00a0The FBI and DHS urged network administrators to load the addresses into their system defenses. \u00a0Some of the addresses, however, belong to platforms that are widely used by the public, including Yahoo servers. \u00a0At Burlington Electric, an unsuspecting network administrator dutifully loaded the addresses into the monitoring system of the utility\u2019s network. \u00a0When an employee checked his email, it registered on the system as if Russian hackers were trying to break in.<\/p>\n While the White House was hyping the Russia threat, elements of the press showed a sudden interest in the infamous Steele dossier, which claimed<\/a> that Russian intelligence services had caught Trump in Moscow in highly compromising situations. \u00a0The dossier was opposition research paid for by Trump\u2019s political opponents, and it had circulated<\/a> for months among reporters covering the election. \u00a0Because it was based on anonymous sources and entirely unverifiable, however, no reputable news organization had dared to touch it.<\/p>\n With a little help from the Obama White House, the dossier became fair game for reporters. \u00a0A government leak<\/a> let it be known that the intelligence community had briefed Trump on the dossier. \u00a0If the president-elect was discussing it with his intelligence briefers, so the reasoning went, perhaps there was something to it after all.<\/p>\n By turning the dossier into hard news, that leak weaponized malicious gossip. The same is true of the Flynn-Kislyak leak. \u00a0Ignatius used the leak to deepen<\/a> speculation about collusion between Putin and Trump: \u201cWhat did Flynn say (to Kislyak),\u201d Ignatius asked, \u201cand did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?\u201d The mere fact that Flynn\u2019s conversations were being monitored deepened his appearance of guilt. \u00a0If he was innocent, why was the government monitoring him?<\/p>\n It should not have been. \u00a0He had the right to talk to in private \u2014 even to a Russian ambassador. \u00a0Regardless of what one thinks about him or Trump or Putin, this leak should concern anyone who believes that we must erect a firewall between the national security state and our domestic politics. \u00a0The system that allowed it to happen must be reformed. \u00a0At stake is a core principle of our democracy: that elected representatives control the government, and not vice versa.<\/p>\n