Hasta La Gadget!

WASHINGTON — Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee are gearing up to fight their new Republican chairman’s attempts to reclaim the panel’s report on the CIA’s torture program, setting the stage for a feud between the committee’s majority and minority members less than three weeks into the new Congress.

“You can’t just come in here and rewrite history,” said a U.S. official familiar with the situation, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of committee matters. “We’re not just going to roll over and let him do this.”

The official’s comments came after reports earlier this week that committee chairman Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) sent a letter to the executive branch earlier this month demanding that it return its copies of the classified 6,900-page torture report. In December, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), then the panel’s chairwoman, had sent the full report out to the White House for “dissemination to all relevant agencies,” just before she turned the committee reins over to Burr.

In his request, Burr suggested that Feinstein had violated Senate Intelligence Committee protocols by sending out the full report. Most committee Democrats, with the exception of Feinstein, only became aware of Burr’s Jan. 14 request after news reports of the letter emerged this week, the U.S. official said.

When news of Burr’s move finally surfaced, Democratic lawmakers made no secret of their outrage.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said Wednesday that it would be “unprecedented and misguided” for the White House to return the copies. “There are lessons in the study for all executive branch agencies, and those lessons should be broadly shared,” he said.

“It would be unprecedented and foolish to return the Executive Branch’s classified copies of the report,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement earlier this week.

And it wasn’t just Democrats who were miffed.

“I just simply disagree,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Thursday. McCain, as chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is now an ex officio member of the Intelligence Committee. “We’re very close friends, we just have a disagreement,” he said of Burr.

But the panel’s new leader was unfazed by the controversy.

“If bipartisanship is them not informing us of what they’re doing, but we’re not bipartisan because we actually called them on it, then we’re going to get a new definition of bipartisanship,” Burr said of his Democratic colleagues in a Thursday interview with The Huffington Post. “I think it’s important that we get to this baseline point, and I think we’re going to do it by the book, versus what it looks like they did — which was do it by the seat of their pants.”

In a related development, Burr said that he had referred the matter of Feinstein’s disclosure to the Senate Parliamentarian, the upper chamber’s adviser on procedure and rules. Burr said in his referral that Feinstein may have violated the panel’s fiercely secretive rules by sending the full report to the executive branch without a vote by the intelligence committee.

“We’ve asked the parliamentarian to look at the hearing records from the committee to see if, in fact, our understanding of what transpired is correct … whether [Feinstein] had the authority to send it,” Burr told HuffPost. “I’ll let the parliamentarian determine whether, in fact, she followed the committee rules.”

The White House declined to comment on how it planned to respond to Burr’s request, or on whether it would comply by sending its copies of the full report back to Congress.

Burr’s letter to the White House said that Feinstein had sent the classified torture report to the executive branch absent a committee vote and without consulting then-ranking member Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) or any members of the panel’s minority. But Feinstein has challenged that notion, claiming that her disclosure was covered by the 112th Congress’ vote to complete the torture study, as well as a 2014 committee vote to release a redacted version of the study’s executive summary.

The former chairwoman has also taken her case to the White House. In a Jan. 16 letter to President Barack Obama that was obtained by Vice News, Feinstein challenged her successor’s assertions, noting that all members of the Senate Intelligence Panel had had access to the “transmittal letter” accompanying the report copies that went to the White House. The transmittal letter, Feinstein suggests, should have served as notice that the disclosure had taken place.

This new development in the years-long torture report feud comes less than three weeks after Burr took the helm of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Before taking over, the North Carolina Republican promised to shift focus to current emerging threats and move past the disagreements of the last year, many of which have centered on the controversial torture study.

Burr’s first bold move, though, isn’t likely to inspire cooperation from his Democratic colleagues.

“It’s going to make it very difficult,” the U.S. official said. “Unprecedented … I can’t think of any precedent for it.”

Currently, the full, classified torture report is considered a “congressional record,” and thus is exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests. Preservation within executive branch record-keeping systems, though, would leave the full report subject to FOIA requests. In her letter to Obama, Feinstein requested that the White House retain its copies of the report “within appropriate Executive Branch Systems of Record.”

But if Burr’s attempts to recollect all copies are successful, he could seal the report’s status as a congressional record and protect it from potential disclosure compelled under FOIA, at least for the duration of his tenure.

“[The report is] a committee sensitive document that should not leave the committee,” Burr said, though he wouldn’t clearly say whether the FOIA consideration was part of his decision to request the document back from the executive branch. By claiming the report as “committee sensitive,” Burr suggests the document should be subject to the Senate committee’s much stricter rules of disclosure.

The new chairman on Thursday also dismissed reports that a third party — like the CIA -– instructed him to fight to get the torture report back, calling such speculation “ludicrous.”

Burr also said this week that he intends to return to the CIA a controversial internal agency document that has been the center of a years-long feud between the CIA and Congress. Senate Intelligence Committee investigators working under Feinstein have fought for access to the document, which is known as the Panetta Review. The review supposedly aligns with the Senate study’s damning conclusions about the CIA’s torture program, most of which the agency publicly denies.

Wyden mentioned the explosive document in his statement expressing opposition for Burr’s attempts to reclaim the larger torture report.

“Senator Feinstein was smart to keep a copy of the Panetta Review,” he said. “I certainly don’t think the Senate should allow the Panetta Review to be covered up by letting [CIA] Director [John] Brennan stick it in the shredder.”

By Noah J. Nelson (@noahjnelson)

One thing has become very clear in the last year, and it was drawn into even sharper focus this week: the future of computing is going to take place right on our faces.

Whether it is in the form of virtual reality (e.g. Oculus Rift, Sony’s Project Morpheus) or augmented reality (e.g. Google’s Glass) the vision of the future that has tech companies stumbling over themselves to capture the public’s imagination relies on the idea that we’ll all be wearing stuff on our faces.

The latest entrant into the Face Race: Microsoft, which showed off their Windows Holographic platform featuring the Windows HoloLens headset at its big Windows 10 event yesterday.

The HoloLenses promise to create virtual objects–which Microsoft is calling holograms even though these things are not holograms–on just about every surface imaginable. The teaser video Microsoft put out along with the announcement showed a wide range of use cases: from step by step plumbing tutorials (no, really) to knocking down a wall to reveal a Minecraft kingdom, and since every internet connected device is legally required to have it: Netflix.

You know: augmented reality Minecraft makes so much sense it hurts.

The head mounted display itself was refreshing in it’s studied inelegance. Not as bulky as an Oculus Rift, while not trying as hard as Google Glass to be inconspicuous and thus failing miserably. You’ll note that almost all of the promo images of the system kind of leave the look of the headset out of the equation. The whole vibe that came off the HoloLenses demo was that this thing is supposed to be used indoors near a desk or in the living room. The irony being that unlike the current version of the Oculus Rift or Sony’s Project Morpheus the HoloLenses purport to be fully autonomous units in their own right: no other computing device is needed for them to operate.

Not that things are shipping right now. Instead they’re being promised “within the Windows 10” timeframe. Which is an almost completely meaningless term that is dependent on the lifecycle of Microsoft’s newest operating system.

The demo videos for HoloLenses become all the more interesting when compared to the images bundled with Magic Leap’s patent application which just became public thanks to a Wired article yesterday. Magic Leap, you’ll recall, is the Florida company that has over a half-a-billion in venture capital to create a device that will beam virtual images directly onto a user’s retinas. A prospect that is simultaneously fascinating and terrifying if you’ve seen enough Star Trek.

While the placement of virtual objects in space as detailed in the images is very similar to the Microsoft demo video the big difference is in Magic Leap’s use of what they call “totems.” These will be physical objects which stand in as interface proxies for virtual objects.

For instance: a six sided die would have different app icons on each face. Turn the die and you can switch app.

It’s this blending of the virtual and real which will not only create new design languages but open up new vistas for storytellers, game designers, and artists. How thick the line between the virtual and real is will determine the success of this vision of augmented reality.

Today’s AR images superimposed and not blended in to their surroundings. It’s the difference between a sci-fi film shot on a low budget in the 1980s and what a television crew manages to pull off on CW’s The Flash. One looks cheap and the other looks good enough that you’re not laughing at the TV.

Decades of exposure mean that we’ve just come to expect more from computer generated images.

In video games that’s meant either riding straight towards photo realism or creating stylized aesthetics which let the player relax into the fiction of that world. These are the design choices that virtual reality creators are facing, and some of them are stumbling over the limitations of the hardware in the quest for the photoreal. Augmented reality designers face these same issues, but also have to deal with mapping the real world.

If Microsoft and Magic Leap can’t get the seams right the technology won’t seem right.

Public media’s TurnstyleNews.com, covers tech and digital culture from the West Coast.

Go to Turnstylenews.com | Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Tumblr

Most reporters don’t have millions of YouTube subscribers or the ability to make a 60-second video go instantly viral, but then again, today’s interview with President Obama wasn’t your typical Q&A — which is precisely why it was a game changer.

In a major win for political youth engagement, three of YouTube’s most popular stars sat down with POTUS himself Thursday in a livestream where they asked him questions amassed through their followers using the hashtag #YouTubeAsksObama.

Vlogger Hank Green was up first, asking the president about drone technology, North Korea and marijuana legalization. Next, GloZell spoke up about police brutality and same-sex marriage, while 19-year-old Bethany Mota concluded the session by touching upon cyberbullying and the power of young voices.

But perhaps more important than the topics discussed, the livestream made teens feel like actual political participants and part of the conversation. Ground-breaking, indeed.

Below, we’ve rounded up the best, most magical moments from the livestream.

1. When Hank looked extra dapper in a blue button-down and tie.

Outfit game = strong.

DFTBA. Proud day for Nerdfighteria. @hankgreen and @BarackObama on my screen! #YouTubeAsksObama pic.twitter.com/0L2VgJawGc

— Mitali (@AlleyofBooks) January 22, 2015

2. When POTUS used a copy of “The Fault in Our Stars” to sign Hank’s prescription receipt.

NBD.

President Obama used a copy of #TFIOS to sign a pic of @hankgreen‘s prescription receipt #YouTubeAsksObama pic.twitter.com/JIcjoiUa7z

— Vivian (@vivnunez) January 22, 2015

3. When GloZell asked POTUS how we can bridge the gap between African American males and white cops.

All the claps.

Really incredible that GloZell was allowed to bring up police brutality/racism in this #YouTubeAsksObama

— Valiance (@Valiance) January 22, 2015

4. When GloZell hilariously referred to FLOTUS as the “First Wife” by accident.

No worries, Glo. We know what you meant.

A gift for President Obama’s “first wife”: http://t.co/2diTTNHkJQ via #YouTubeAsksObama

— Jeremy Levine (@Jeremy10036) January 22, 2015

5. When GloZell brought green lipstick for Obama to give to FLOTUS, Malia and Sasha.

Because she’s super awesome/thoughtful like that.

Most important part of #YouTubeAsksObama: @GloZell giving POTUS green lipstick #IWouldAskObama pic.twitter.com/QOCV8RnODY

— Alex Thomas (@AlexThomasHLN) January 22, 2015

6. Bethany’s adorable interview set-up, which included cut-out stars, owls and a photo of her niece.

Stop being so cute, Beth.

@BethanyMota OMGG! #YouTubeAsksObama pic.twitter.com/ovjPwFVCzy

— Queen Elizabeth (@lizabethbiebs94) January 22, 2015

7. When POTUS said this:

Real talk.

“Your voice is more powerful than the President of the United States.” President Obama to @BethanyMota. Wow. #YouTubeAsksObama

— Raymond Braun (@raymondbraun) January 22, 2015

8. When POTUS revealed what super power he would have.

“The flying thing seems pretty cool, right?” He’d also love to be able to speak any language.

beth: if you could pick any superpower what would you choose?
obama: the flying thing

— tiana (@TianaLucy) January 22, 2015

9. And when they all took a group selfie at the end.

I.C.O.N.I.C.

Follow HuffPost Teen on Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr | Pheed |

WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) appeared to be have pulled off a masterful political victory against the Obama administration Wednesday when he revealed that he had invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress on the dangers of the administration’s negotiations with Iran.

Coming a day after President Barack Obama threatened to veto new Iran-related sanctions legislation that he said could harm the negotiations, Boehner’s move looked like a smart way to reinforce support for such bills — a priority for the Republican-led Congress — by showing that the U.S.’s top ally in the region supported them.

Then things started to fall apart.

Secretary of State John Kerry, fresh off his fumbling on the issue of French solidarity, pulled off a diplomatic bank shot by using a different part of the Israeli government against Boehner. Asked about the invitation at a press conference with European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, Kerry diplomatically said Netanyahu was welcome in the U.S. any time — and proceeded to both steal Boehner’s thunder and turn news coverage in a different direction.

“In Israel, one of the top intelligence –- one of the top intelligence personnel within the Israeli intelligence field –- I won’t name names, but this person was asked directly by a congressional delegation that visited there over the weekend what the effect of sanctions would be. And this person answered that it would be like throwing a grenade into the process,” Kerry said. “So we’re asking people to be responsible here, and then let’s have a good, responsible debate about what the best way to proceed is.”

Kerry’s comment altered the conversation, making it about whether Republicans want to torpedo nuclear talks with Iran. The Obama administration describes the negotiations as the only way to ensure that Iran cannot gain a nuclear weapon to threaten the very country Boehner says the administration is failing: Israel. Kerry’s message: It’s Republicans, and the Democrats who support them on new sanctions, who would fail Israel by antagonizing Iran and destroying the chance of a peaceful resolution to the years-long controversy over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Within hours of Kerry’s comment, Bloomberg View columnists Josh Rogin and Eli Lake were out with an explosive story that said lawmakers present at the briefing with Israeli intelligence and staffers who were informed about it confirmed Kerry’s comment. They added that two senior U.S. officials had told them members of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, “shared its view with the administration that if legislation that imposed a trigger leading to future sanctions on Iran was signed into law, it would cause the talks to collapse.”

The question of what the Mossad said and how it is being interpreted is important because it forces lawmakers to be open about their intentions. Are they simply worried that Iran will renege on the agreement, as they say, pointing to the fact that the proposed sanctions would only come into effect if there is a violation of a nuclear deal? Or are they pushing sanctions because they espouse the more extreme views of Iran critics like newly-minted <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/22/cotton-regime-change-iran_n_6527462.html?1421975631
” target=”_hplink”>Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who said earlier this month that ending the negotiations was the goal of the sanctions and that the U.S. should prepare for regime change in Tehran by bolstering its military capabilities? That belligerent stance is not one that most pro-sanctions lawmakers want to be associated with, given the political liabilities involved with recommending even more U.S. intervention in the Middle East.

The day-after story ended up being less about what Netanyahu would say to Congress — and how that speech may influence sanctions talk in Washington or electoral politics in Tel Aviv, given that Netanyahu is up for a fight to maintain power later this year — than about a perceived rift between the Mossad and Netanyahu.

The suggestion that Israeli officials were advising U.S. lawmakers on how to save the diplomatic process seemed out of step with the prime minister’s skepticism about Obama’s approach to the nuclear negotiations. In fact, the Mossad comments gave the administration a new talking point in convincing lawmakers to oppose sanctions, Lake and Rogin claimed. The Jerusalem Post quoted Israeli officials calling the Kerry’s revelation “Obama’s revenge” for the Boehner invite.

The Mossad’s leader issued a statement Thursday denying that he was opposed to sanctions, and calling them “the sticks necessary for reaching a good deal with Iran.” He said that he spoke about “throwing a grenade,” as Kerry had said, he meant that new sanctions would mean “creating a temporary crisis in the negotiations at the end of which talks would resume under improved conditions” — seemingly giving pro-sanctions lawmakers the ability to once again call themselves supporters of smart nuclear diplomacy.

Still, the story had shifted — and all Boehner was left with was a promise for a Netanyahu address at the time of the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in early March, by which point the administration has said it hoped to already have a framework for the deal.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu got his own rebuke as the White House revealed that it would not meet with him during that March trip. “We do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections, so as to avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country,” said National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan.

Turning 50 is a bit of a milestone in anyone’s book — whether it’s a midlife birthday or a pop culture phenomenon. Huff/Post50 has you covered on which celebrities are turning 50 this year (Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Rock and Sarah Jessica Parker to name a few) — check out the rest here. After you have time to digest those surprise birthdays, we thought we would bring you some memories of an historical event that took place in 1965, as well as pop culture events that will bring on the awww factor (cuteness alert).

Movies

“The Sound of Music,” “Cat Ballou” , “Dr. Zhivago,” and “Beach Blanket Bingo” were released in 1965. Does it seem possible that these classic films are 50?

Civil Rights

The movie “Selma” interprets the true story of Martin Luther King’s voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama in 1965. The 1965 Voting Rights Act — which guaranteed African-Americans the right to vote — became law that year! The “1965: Civil Rights at 50” exhibit opens on Jan. 16 at the National Newseum in Washington, D.C.

Medicare

The Medicare and Medicaid programs were signed into law on July 30, 1965. President LBJ is pictured at the signing ceremony in Independence, Missouri at the Truman Library.

Music

The Grateful Dead began their musical journey 50 years ago with lead guitarist Jerry Garcia. Attention all Deadheads: Look for a Grateful Dead documentary sometime in 2015.

The Beatles played a live concert at Shea Stadium in New York City on Aug. 15, 1965, performing the first stadium concert to over 55,000 fans. In case you weren’t born yet, check out the video here.

Weddings

Comedian Don Rickles and Barbara Sklar, who were married on March 14, 1965, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary this year. A great big congratulations to the happy couple! “Mr. Warmth” talked to HuffPost about his marriage to his lovely wife, Barbara. Check it out here.

The Mascot

That super adorable “Popin’ Fresh” Pillsbury Doughboy became the mascot of the Pillsbury Company in 1965. Who knew the little guy (who has affectionately been described as “knee-high to a crescent roll“) would be 50 this year? Check out his cuteness here taking the ALS Association’s Ice Bucket Challenge. Dough!

TV

The soap opera “Days of Our Lives,” which premiered on NBC on Nov. 8, 1965, has been following the families of Salem –“a middle-American town” — for half a century now. (If anyone has watched this soap for the full 50 years, please raise your hand.) “Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives.”

Celebrities

Fifty years ago, the Beatles met Elvis for the first time in his Bel Air home, Sonny and Cher’s song “I Got You Babe,” hit the top of the charts, and Winston Churchill died at the age of 90. For more pop culture and historical events that took place in 1965, go to Mr. Pop Culture, 1965.

Earlier on Huff/Post50: