Our post starts at The Hill, which on Wednesday ran an opinion piece by Steven Cash about the deep state and why it’s a good thing; Cash prefers to refer to it as the “steady state,” “the body of long-serving Intelligence Officers whose tenure transcends administrations and elections, and whose longevity and experience provides both wisdom and stability, and allows for the embrace and execution of the methods which allow espionage to be effectively conducted in our democracy.”
Former CIA clandestine service officer John Sipher tweeted the piece Monday and caught the attention of journalist Adam Housley.
Why we need a 'Deep State' | TheHill https://t.co/KqJuW91EBA
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) March 30, 2020
We need a deep state, but they also need to be held accountable. There needs to be a series of checks. https://t.co/F6gmqR9Tjr
— Adam Housley (@adamhousley) March 30, 2020
It’s called congressional oversight and a robust Justice Department.
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) March 30, 2020
Recommended
That didn’t do so well starting in about 2009. Some in the agencies say it stretches back into the 90’s. https://t.co/rwS2yUA7AR
— Adam Housley (@adamhousley) March 30, 2020
What abuses do you believe were the result of lack of oversight? I disagree with your contention.
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) March 31, 2020
Oh I don't know…Unmasking…FBI overreach waaaay before Trump. Serious questions about Brennan and how he was running his own operation. I broke much of this…mainstream didn't care enough to follow up. https://t.co/gXnNuw4W5J
— Adam Housley (@adamhousley) March 31, 2020
Unmasking? Seriously? Nobody followed up because it was a non issue. You merely showed your ignorance.
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) March 31, 2020
Sharyl Attkisson followed up on it quite closely. We don’t think it being a non-issue is why the mainstream press largely ignored it.
John you haven’t addressed my thread yet. I am curious. Straight factual and goes against much of what you are claiming.
— Adam Housley (@adamhousley) April 1, 2020
I still don’t think you fully understand the process and how hard it would be to abuse. If you are truly a bad actor, unmasking would be the worst tool at your disposal.
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) April 1, 2020
I absolutely understand the process and it isn't hard to abuse at all because it was. Ask those who were abused by it, or those who were concerned with how it was being used. Even the FISA court. https://t.co/8OIcj0AyzT
— Adam Housley (@adamhousley) April 1, 2020
Anything can be abused but unmasking is a tool that would be hard to abuse. Seniors who receive intelligence need to unmask. Otherwise, they wouldn't understand the intelligence. At the lower levels, they don't need to know and US cit info should be protected. 1/
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) April 1, 2020
At the upper levels they have a "need to know" since they are charged with acting on the info. An intel that says an unnamed person might be a target of an attack, or is distrusted by a gov't is useless unless a senior knows to whom it refers. 2/
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) April 1, 2020
Prior to the actual unmasking, however, there is no way for the senior policymaker to know who it is about. He/she can't know that a political enemy is involved. Nor can he/she direct intel collection on someone they don't like. Also, there is a record of each unmasking 3/
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) April 1, 2020
So, can it be abused after the fact – yes, I guess so. However, it is a poor weapon since there is no way to aim it. And, it is a fool's weapon because there is a clear record of the unmasking. My problem with most reporting (I don't know yours), is that… 4/
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) April 1, 2020
Many people used the fact that almost nobody understands the process to insinuate that it was clearly a political tool used by the party in power. I don't doubt partisans use and abuse tools but unmasking is a lame tool for such use. 5/
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) April 1, 2020
Like anyone should trust what a former CIA says about it especially after we have seen proof that it's been abused
— NOLA_4ever (@NOLA_4ever) April 1, 2020
Actually a CIA person is actually the best one to talk about it because it’s something we use in our work. What is your experience? Fox News?
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) April 2, 2020
Trying to take a cheap shot?! Nice try Ex CIA…also…I got a few friends too. Just as wired in…and clearly with a fairer take. In it for truth and saw the misuse. You think not? That’s fine. You covering up? Then you are part of the problem. I hope it’s the former. https://t.co/nVtjgpV7Yi
— Adam Housley (@adamhousley) April 2, 2020
My experience is uncovering and finding truth. People trust me. You? https://t.co/nVtjgpV7Yi
— Adam Housley (@adamhousley) April 2, 2020
https://twitter.com/john_sipher/status/1245508201245806597
I know what it means…that’s why I said it and you know it too. I understand very well thank you. I am engaging back and you threw out the Fox News attempted low blow. Ummm do a little research on me before you try and assign something. That’s what you do…correct? https://t.co/yfLSAoSIZV
— Adam Housley (@adamhousley) April 2, 2020
Still no comment on who made the unmasking requests in Samantha Power's name, John? Did she lie under oath? I mean, you know how it works. Is that a problem?
— John Ward (@JWard_73) April 2, 2020
Housley retweeted this flashback from the Wall Street Journal:
“But if high-level members of the Obama Administration were abusing intelligence to spy on Trump people during that same campaign, the American people deserve answers on that too.”https://t.co/FNA00mvdMO
— NoEditButton (@TooOldToEdit) April 2, 2020
Look, if someone has to write a piece defending the deep state — sorry, the steady state — then obviously its reputation has taken a hit. Much like the mainstream media, it seems the intelligence community doesn’t understand why people mistrust them to such a degree now.
CIA is not exactly trusted right now.
— Gk (@GKdesertrain) April 2, 2020
Uh the CIA isnt necessarily a great name to drop ..
— charity (@dance4meagain) April 2, 2020
My experience is I didn't believe in the discredited Steele Dossier. Not only did you believe it, but you wrote a supporting analysis about it for Steele's company.https://t.co/u9SiaoQde1
— NOLA_4ever (@NOLA_4ever) April 2, 2020
BOOM!
— …and I come out grinnin (@AGrinnin) April 2, 2020
Related:
INFURIATING! Sharyl Attkisson SLAMS troll, reveals Samantha Power requested unmaskings near-DAILY in 2016 https://t.co/eUnxcqv02W
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) July 31, 2018
