December 2015

US Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress

President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret US surveillance programs. But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former US officials said. Topping the list was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The US, pursuing a nuclear arms agreement with Iran at the time, captured communications between Prime Minister Netanyahu and his aides that inflamed mistrust between the two countries and planted a political minefield at home when Prime Minister Netanyahu later took his campaign against the deal to Capitol Hill. The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with US lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears -- an “Oh-s--- moment,” one senior US official said -- that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress. White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Prime Minister Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. “We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ” a senior U.S. official said. “We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ”

In closed-door debate, the Obama Administration weighed which allied leaders belonged on a so-called protected list, shielding them from NSA snooping. French President François Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization leaders made the list, but the administration permitted the NSA to target the leaders’ top advisers, current and former US officials said. Other allies were excluded from the protected list, including Recep Tayyip Erdogan, president of NATO ally Turkey, which allowed the NSA to spy on their communications at the discretion of top officials. Privately, President Obama maintained the monitoring of Prime Minister Netanyahu on the grounds that it served a “compelling national security purpose,” according to current and former US officials. President Obama mentioned the exception in his speech but kept secret the leaders it would apply to.

FBI Seeks to Reframe Encryption Debate

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is issuing a more direct challenge to technology companies in the wake of terror attacks in Paris and California, urging them in blunter terms to allow investigators to decrypt private communications during terror probes. Hoping to escape a continuing debate over the technical feasibility of decryption, which they fear plays into Silicon Valley’s hands, FBI Director James Comey and others are pushing executives to move away from a policy they say values customers’ privacy over public safety. “It is a business-model question,” Director Comey said at a recent congressional hearing, adding that executives “have designed their systems and their devices so that judges’ orders cannot be complied with…Should they change their business model? That is a very, very hard question.”

Challenging tech CEOs like Apple Inc.’s Tim Cook directly suggests that Director Comey could be laying the groundwork for a push in Congress for legislation that would force the companies to change their products. So far, however, there is no indication the tech industry is retreating from its argument that strong encryption is necessary to protect users’ information, and that providing a technological “key” or “backdoor” for law enforcement would simply make the information more vulnerable to hackers of all kinds.

George Pataki drops presidential bid

George Pataki ended his presidential campaign on Dec 29, dropping a bid to capture the Republican nomination that never caught traction with a voter base clamoring for more conservative and anti-establishment candidates. "While tonight is the end of my journey for the White House as I suspend my campaign for president, I am confident we can elect the right person," Pataki said in a web video posted on his Twitter and Facebook accounts. "Someone who will bring us together and who understands that politicians, including the president, must be the people's servant and not their master. I know the best of America is still ahead of us." The former New York governor hoped his experience as a three-term chief executive who led the Empire State during the September 11 terrorist attacks would resonate with the Republican Party. But he never broke single digits in polling or qualified for prime-time debates.

The Political Consultant Racket

[Commentary] Political consultants earn fees and commissions by turning the billions of dollars given to candidates, political parties and “super PACs” -- like Jeb Bush’s Right to Rise -- into the products and services of contemporary campaigns, especially TV (and Internet) ads. More money means more ads, and more ads means more money. However, media saturation makes it more difficult to grab our attention, requiring more ads, and more money and contributions, to reach the electorate.

Consultants want their clients to win, but they also need their businesses to survive. Despite mounting evidence that the effects of TV on the electorate can be uncertain and often short-lived, television remains the single largest expenditure in most campaigns because candidates think they need it to win -- and because it is the most reliable source of revenue and the most lucrative part of the consulting business. The economic incentives of the consulting industry are driving up the cost of campaigns.

[Adam Sheingate is the author of “Building a Business of Politics: The Rise of Political Consulting and the Transformation of American Democracy” and the chairman of the political science department at Johns Hopkins University.]

CNN loves Donald Trump, Fox loves Hillary Clinton, and it’s all less strange than it sounds

[Commentary] No matter what cable new channel you watch, you saw a lot of Donald Trump in 2015, and you saw a lot more of Hillary Clinton than any of her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. If you watch one network in particular, though, you saw a ton of Trump - almost twice as much as you saw of Clinton. And if you watch another leading network, you will have seen as much of Clinton as you did of Trump, and almost nothing about Clinton's liberal challengers. That Trump-loving network is CNN. The one that talks a lot more about Clinton is Fox News. It's less strange than it sounds.

Fox is not known for its frequent puff pieces on Hillary Clinton; one clue for why she shows up so much more on its shows, comparatively speaking, comes from the Internet Archive. It lists 1,500 individual shows mentioning "Benghazi" on Fox for 2015, compared to about 650 on CNN. It's likely that the extra airtime Clinton is receiving on Fox, in other words, has often been spent discussing scandals surrounding her and her candidacy.