Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA

Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has lost the imperative to be a check to power

Guardian
Glenn Greenwald

CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf told New York Times
national security reporter Mark Mazzetti to 'keep me posted'
about a forthcoming Maureen Dowd column; he obliged

The rightwing transparency group, Judicial Watch, released Tuesday a new batch of documents showing how eagerly the Obama administrationshoveled information to Hollywood film-makers about the Bin Laden raid. Obama officials did so to enable the production of a politically beneficial pre-election film about that "heroic" killing, even as administration lawyers insisted to federal courts and media outlets that no disclosure was permissible because the raid was classified.

Thanks to prior disclosures from Judicial Watch of documents it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, this is old news. That's what the Obama administration chronically does: it manipulates secrecy powers to prevent accountability in a court of law, while leaking at will about the same programs in order to glorify the president.

But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emailsbetween Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.

A mere two minutes after the CIA spokeswoman sent this Friday night inquiry, Mazzetti responded. He promised her that he was "going to see a version before it gets filed", and assured her that there was likely nothing to worry about:

"My sense is there a very brief mention at bottom of column about CIA ceremony, but that [screenwriter Mark] Boal also got high level access at Pentagon."

She then replied with this instruction to Mazzetti: "keep me posted", adding that she "really appreciate[d] it".

Moments later, Mazzetti forwarded the draft of Dowd's unpublished column to the CIA spokeswoman (it was published the following night online by the Times, and two days later in the print edition). At the top of that email, Mazzetti wrote: "this didn't come from me … and please delete after you read." He then proudly told her that his assurances turned out to be true:

This exchange, by itself, is remarkably revealing: of the standard role played by establishment journalists and the corruption that pervades it. Here we have a New York Times reporter who covers the CIA colluding with its spokesperson to plan for the fallout from the reporting by his own newspaper ("nothing to worry about"). Beyond this, that a New York Times journalist – ostensibly devoted to bringing transparency to government institutions – is pleading with the CIA spokesperson, of all people, to conceal his actions and to delete the evidence of collusion is so richly symbolic.

The relationship between the New York Times and the US government is, as usual, anything but adversarial. Indeed, these emails read like the interactions between a PR representative and his client as they plan in anticipation of a possible crisis.

Even more amazing is the reaction of the newspaper's managing editor, Dean Baquet, to these revelations, as reported by Politico's Dylan Byers:

"New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet called POLITICO to explain the situation, but provided little clarity, saying he could not go into detail on the issue because it was an intelligence matter. 

"'I know the circumstances, and if you knew everything that's going on, you'd know it's much ado about nothing,' Baquet said. 'I can't go into in detail. But I'm confident after talking to Mark that it's much ado about nothing.' 

"'The optics aren't what they look like,' he went on. 'I've talked to Mark, I know the circumstance, and given what I know, it's much ado about nothing.'"

There is so much to say about that passage.

First, try though I did, I'm unable to avoid noting that this statement from Baquet – "the optics aren't what they look like" – is one of the most hilariously incoherent utterances seen in some time. It's the type ofmeaningless, illiterate corporatese that comes spewing forth from bumbling executives defending the indefensible. I've read that sentence roughly a dozen times over the last 24 hours and each time, it provides me with greater amounts of dark amusement.

NYT reporter leaked advance copy of Maureen Dowd column to CIA

Politico
Dylan Byers

America's favorite bearded time lord

Newly available CIA records obtained by Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group, reveal that New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti forwarded an advance copy of a Maureen Dowd column to a CIA spokesperson -- a practice that is widely frowned upon within the industry.

Mazzetti's correspondence with CIA spokesperson Marie Harf, on August 5, 2011, pertained to the Kathryn Bigelow-Mark Boal film "Zero Dark Thirty," about the killing of Osama bin Laden, and a Times op-ed column by Dowd set to be published two days later that criticized the White House for having "outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood."

According to Judicial Watch, Mazzetti sent Harf an advance copy of Dowd's column, and wrote: “this didn’t come from me… and please delete after you read.  See, nothing to worry about!”

POLITICO has just reached out to the Times for comment, as it was unable to do so prior to Judicial Watch's decision to lift the embargo on the files. Updates here if and when I hear back.

Judicial Watch obtained the files through a formal Freedom of Information Act request. The full email can be viewed here.

Investigator who cleared Obama in scandal is his campaign donor

Examiner
Jim Kouri

The financial institution executive who was in charge of the “independent probe" that ended up absolving the Obama Administration for wasting billions of taxpayers' dollars spent on green energy schemes was neither bi-partisan or non-partisan, but a big contributor to the Obama reelection campaign, according to a report by a Washington, D.C., public-interest group that investigates corruption.

According to a report on Friday, Herbert Allison’s role as a special investigator of the Department of Energy's stimulus-funded loan program that is sparking curiosity. Not long after Allison determined that billions in taxpayer dollars invested in Obama-favored “green” technology companies were at nominal risk, "he made campaign donations -- big ones -- to the Democratic National Committee and the president’s re-election efforts," officials at theNational Legal and Policy Center claim.

In addition, according to officials at Judicial Watch, this situation raises doubts about the integrity of Wall Street maven Allison's investigation, "which centered on nearly $3 billion in loans that the Obama Department of Energy (DOE) doled out for experimental alternative energy projects."

Among the loans was an alleged fly-by-night California company named Solyndra, that was bankrolled by another Obama donor and fundraiser (bundler) George Kaiser, wasted more than half a billion dollars before finally going bankrupt.

In early 2012, a federal audit confirmed that “serious concerns” expressed by U.S. Treasury officials involving the risky $535 million Solyndra infusion were ignored as the deal was fast-tracked by top White House officials.

As a result, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the Department of Energy to obtain records regarding the Solyndra loan because "the administration has blown off a public records request that dates back to early September 2011."

The Treasury Department Inspector General's report, “Consultation on Solyndra Loan Guarantee Was Rushed,” revealed that Department of Energy cut out the Treasury Department officials from issues regarding Solyndra, ignoring the agency’s advice and limiting its opportunity to review the high-priced, high-risk financing of what critics called "an Obama green pipe dream."

Incredibly, the so-called in-depth investigation that is now known to have been conducted by Obama’s donor found no wrongdoing on the part of the administration.

"The donor/watchdog scandal was uncovered this week by a mainstream media outlet, which in and of itself is incredible considering the love fest that exists between most news organizations and the commander-in-chief. Puff pieces dominate coverage of the administration -- in major newspapers as well as television networks -- so this is a rare treat," stated the Judicial Watch blog entry.

The veteran Wall Street executive Herbert Allison, who was handpicked by the Obama administration to investigate the Obama administration's disastrous green energy loan losses, contributed $52,000 to re-elect Obama in the months after he completed the in-depth probe.

It’s all documented in federal campaign records reviewed by the national wire service that broke the story. The cash started pouring in just two weeks after Allison testified before Congress about his report, which exonerated the administration and was heavily touted by the White House.

"It started with a $2,500 donation to the Obama campaign in late March, the story reveals. In May he plopped down another $15,000 for the Obama Victory Fund, a joint group that supports the president’s reelection and the Democratic National Committee. In the following two months, Allison generously deposited another $40,000 into the coffers of the Obama/DNC account. In the news story he defends the integrity of his probe and assures he did not make the decision to back a presidential candidate until after his work was finished," according to the National Legal and Policy Center.

According to Allison's thumbnail bio, he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability of the United States having been confirmed by the Senate on June 19, 2009. He left the Treasury Department in September 2010. As part of his duties he also oversaw the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the $700 billion fund to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions in order to strengthen the financial sector of the economy.

Filmmakers had access to Osama bin Laden intelligence, documents show

The Examiner
Jim Kouri 

Oscar-winning director Bigelow is filming history's
longest presidential campaign commercial, say critics
of Obama's politicizing the killing of Osama bin Laden

A Washington, DC-based group that investigates, exposes, and combats government corruption at the highest levels, surprised members of the news industry by obtaining documents that one source said "were almost as hard to get from the Obama administration as buying a winning lottery ticket at the local grocery store."

What is revealed in these records is disturbing, even shocking, say a number of counterterrorism and political experts who spoke with the Law Enforcement Examiner. 

The noted -- and feared by a number of politicos -- public-interest organization, Judicial Watch, reported on May 21 that its officials obtained records from the U.S. Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency regarding meetings and communications between Obama-run federal agencies and veteran filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow. 

Bigelow, the ex-wife of director James Cameron (Titanic), garnered an Oscar for her direction of The Hurt Locker, an acclaimed motion picture about a U.S. Army bomb disposal unit in Iraq at the height of the insurgency.  

According to the newly obtained records, the Obama Defense Department granted Bigelow and her screenwriter Mark Boal access to a “planner, Operator and Commander of SEAL Team Six,” the special forces unit that killed the world's most famous and most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden, in a daring covert operation inside Pakistan on May 1, 2011. 

Kagan Defies Judicial Ethics and Sits on Obamacare Case

PRNewsWire

Larry Klayman

Today, the Supreme Court began oral arguments on the constitutionality of one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in the past fifty years. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, referred to as "Obamacare," stretches the power of the federal government to a level never before seen. Yet this is not the most important decision the Court faces. Justice Elena Kagan, the former Solicitor General, is continuing to illegally preside over a case in which her impartiality has been seriously called into question. 

Freedom Watch was the only group to file an amicus brief on the issue of Kagan's recusal and/or disqualification. Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and before that Judicial Watch, has been the most ardent critic of the Court's avoidance of this issue. Never before has a justice, who championed legislation during its passage and crafted a legal defense for it, been able to preside over its validity. In no other court of the United States would this be acceptable. 

The Supreme Court, in a showing of defiance that its impartiality would be called into question, not only refused to hear oral argument on the issue of recusal and/or disqualification from Mr. Klayman, but today Justice Kagan presided over the case. This is consistent with Chief Justice Roberts' outrageous claim that the Supreme Court is not bound to the same ethic standards as lower courts, and that these standards may be "unconstitutional" -- a fabricated position meant only to justify the court's illegal actions. This serves to delegitimize not only this decision but the Supreme Court as an institution. 

Klayman adds, "It is now clear that the Supreme Court considers itself above the law, does not represent the American people and much less the rule of law. This is a formula for revolution."

For more information or to schedule an interview with Mr. Klayman call Tom Madden or Adrienne Mazzone, 561-750-9800 x210. The docket number in the Supreme Court is 11-393, 11-400.

SOURCE Larry Klayman 

U.S. Judge blasts Obama scientists calling them "liars"

The Examiner
Jim Kouri

The judge called one [scientist] a “zealot” who didn’t let facts get in the way of her goals and the other an “untrustworthy” witness.

A federal judge blasted Obama Administration-connected scientists on Friday for their lying to justify a drastic reduction in the amount of water that flows into California’s central valley for the sake of protecting “endangered” fish, according to a blogger for a major public-interest group that investigates government corruption.

The feds provided “equivocal or bad science,” in order to divert two years’ worth of water from the state’s central valley farmland, according to a 279-page opinion issued this week by U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger in Fresno, California.

Considered the state’s agriculture hub, the area spans 2 million acres and has a population of about 25 million, according to a report from the Judicial Watch blog.

"An adequate water supply is essential and should trump the needs of “endangered” fish. That’s not how the Obama Administration sees it, however," states a blog at Judicial Watch, a non-partisan watchdog group that investigates case of government and political corruption .

To make its case the government put together an official “biological opinion” of different species that migrate through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. To save them the feds essentially have to stem the flow of water into the area, according to government biologists from various agencies.

But the judge dismissed portions of the government’s biological opinion, calling them “arbitrary, capricious and unlawful.”

Judge Wanger also determined that many of the government scientists provided “false” and “incredible” testimony in order to support a “bad faith” preservation plan. Specifically named in the opinion were scientists from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The judge called one [scientist] a “zealot” who didn’t let facts get in the way of her goals and the other an “untrustworthy” witness.

"I have never seen anything like what has been placed before this court by these two witnesses," the judge wrote in his ruling. "The only inference that the court can draw is that it is an attempt to mislead and to deceive the court."

That must hurt, although the Obama government got much of what it wanted, permission to push encroaching salt water back in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

The bottom line remains, however, that taxpayer-funded scientists provided false information -- to a federal court, no less -- to make a case for a bogus preservation plan.

"We’ve seen this repeatedly in the Obama Administration’s global warming hype. Government scientists have made all sorts of wacky assertions about the ills of climate change, even as esteemed scientists—including Nobel laureates—dispute the findings," according to Judicial Watch's blogger.

Among them: That climate change will threaten national security, make food “dangerous,” add to the malnourishment of millions worldwide, cause mental illness and cancer.

"Just a few days ago a group of federal researchers determined that global warming is much worse than previously imagined because the ocean masks the true rate of damage for periods as long as a decade. They used computer simulation to make that brilliant discovery." stated officials at Judicial Watch.
Continued thanks to Judicial Watch director of public affairs, Jill Farrell, for her excellent help and support.