Mike Rogers Still Pushing His 'Snowden Is A Russian Spy' Delusion, Citing Every Single 'Counterintelligence Official' In Support
from the more-delusions-cited-within,-including-a-presidential-run dept
Mike Rogers is still intent on proving Ed Snowden is a Russian spy. Apparently, Rogers’ plan is to make the same assertions over and over again without providing any evidence beyond hearsay and conjecture (always from unnamed, unspecified intelligence community members).
His latest foray into his own particular conspiracy theory occurred during an interview with Michael Crowley at TIME. Crowley asks him to explain the assertions he’s made about Ed Snowden, particularly the statement that he’s under the influence of Russian intelligence (FSB). Crowley points out Rogers has offered no evidence to back up these claims. Rogers responds… by again offering no evidence.
The NSA contractor is definitely under the influence of Russian officials. We know that he was in China, Hong Kong anyway, and in Russia today. We have seen patterns and activities that lead us to believe that some or all of that information is being worked through by those intelligence services and putting the U.S. at risk.
There’s your “evidence.” Snowden was in Hong Kong and now, Russia. Case closed. As for the “patterns and activities,” Rogers offers nothing definite, other than foreign intelligence services are “working through” the documents, which could really mean nothing more than they’re reading the papers.
If the NSA still doesn’t know what’s been taken, it’s rather hard for any “counterintelligence official” to claim moves are being made because of yet undisclosed documents. If Rogers’ assertion is true (and there’s no reason to believe it is), it means the intelligence community is engaging in the same sort of conspiratorial speculation that he is. Needless to say, this would be perhaps the least productive use of the agency’s resources.
You’ll notice (as Crowley did) that Rogers won’t even say Snowden’s name at this point (referring to him only as a “NSA contractor”). Here’s his excuse:
I think people have wrongly given him some elevated status, and he has some kind of an underground rock-star status. He’s a traitor who puts our soldiers lives at risk.
If anyone’s turning Snowden into a larger-than-life figure, it’s those, like Rogers, who are attempting to portray him as backstabbing traitor who ran to the welcoming arms of foreign intelligence agencies.
Rogers goes from bad to worse to incomprehensible within the space of a few questions. He says Snowden’s living arrangements are far too cozy with Russian intelligence. At first, Snowden’s only “about a mile away” from FSB’s headquarters, then he’s “been in custody” and finally, he’s living in an FSB “joint facility.” Crowley questions this and Rogers backpedals.
No, no, not a joint facility. He’s housed very near an FSB facility. Makes it convenient for everybody.
Then there’s this: Rogers’ ultimate proof that he’s not a crazy person with a headful of conspiracy theories.
And remember we have other classified ways as well. That’s why no counterintelligence official does not believe that today he’s under the influence.
Really? Then why have no other counterintelligence officials stepped up to make this claim? Do they really think this potential bombshell is best deployed by a rah-go-team-surveillance blowhard like Mike Rogers, a legislator who has done his very best to play the part of subservient flack catcher for the surveillance state? Wouldn’t the single, most damning bit of evidence that Snowden is everything his detractors claim he is (traitor, spy) have already been exposed? Presumably these unnamed counterintelligence officials are no fan of Snowden’s actions. If so, why are they sitting on this and letting someone like Rogers proactively destroy any potential credibility?
There’s only one answer: it’s completely untrue. Rogers may be able to find a number of yes-men who nod sagely while he spews baseless claims, but there’s no way that number includes counterintelligence officials. Even if some of them suspect Snowden might be working in conjunction with Russia’s FSB, they’ve wisely decided not to make that public before they’ve gathered enough evidence to support the claim. Rogers, on the other hand, has decided his gut instinct, informed by his irrational hatred of this “NSA contractor,” is all the evidence that’s really needed.