52 votes

Update: Democrat Briefed Today on Surveillance Programs Says What's Publicly Known Is Only "Tip of Iceberg"

Update: Greenwald himself tweets this morning:

Seems as though from what he's seen, he knows what she's alluding to and like Sen Wyden and Sen Udall, hinting at how deep the rabbit hole really is. One can only hope we'll see some new leaked documents soon taking us a little further into it. (end of update)

Check this out (emphasis mine):

The federal surveillance programs revealed in media reports are just "the tip of the iceberg," a House Democrat said Wednesday.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) said lawmakers learned "significantly more" about the spy programs at the National Security Agency (NSA) during a briefing on Tuesday with counterterrorism officials.

"What we learned in there," Sanchez said, "is significantly more than what is out in the media today."

Lawmakers are barred from revealing the classified information they receive in intelligence briefings, and Sanchez was careful not to specify what members might have learned about the NSA's work.

"I can't speak to what we learned in there, and I don't know if there are other leaks, if there's more information somewhere, if somebody else is going to step up, but I will tell you that I believe it's the tip of the iceberg," she said.

She went on to say:

"I think it's just broader than most people even realize, and I think that's, in one way, what astounded most of us, too," Sanchez said of the briefing.

Seemed at first reading as though she was almost hopeful that someone would "step up" with additional leaks.. But after listening to her in the video that doesn't seem to be the case at all. She kept stressing "but it's legal" as though that settles the matter; as though the talking points she was spoonfed in the meeting were dispositive, and so we should all just go on our merry way.

I dunno. If you watch the video post your thoughts, I'm curious what people think of her interview.

For full story click here.

*For those who saw it while it was up extremely briefly, apologies for my initial headline; that's the way her words read to me. But after watching the video of her remarks, you can see how the tone she actually takes gives her words a different significance than that which I attributed to them based on reading alone.*



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

did she seem alarmed to you?

did she seem alarmed to you? i feel like she seemed alarmed, even though when she was talking she appeared on the surface to be sort of passe. her semantics betrayed that calm, though, to me, and even her body language -- facial expressions in particular -- seemed like she was screaming; "This shit is crazy!" and that she was imploring others to "step up" when talking about additional leaks. to phrase it that way - "i don't know if someone else is going to step up" -- seems hopeful for it. and even though she ignorantly claimed "but it's all legal!" she was incredulous when she said it, as though to say "are you f-ing kidding me?"

so that's sorta how i was looking at it. but it's past 1 a.m. and i should be sleeping right now. so i'm gonna go do that.

still coming to grips

yes, she sounded like she was still coming to grips with it....like unbelievable