Have to say it seems more plausible to me that they did a
     faux-forthright
     job of answering questions from this new review process.  I mean
     what else
     could they do?  Stonewall?
     Adam

   ​I'll suggest a slightly different scenario.  One in which Stone is
   presenting his honest opinion, and in which what he spoke is accurate.
   I don't know much about him - I think I'm fairly safe in stating prior
   to his Review panel he never went close to, let alone through, the Ft.
   Meade perimeter onto NSA grounds.
   Doing so is awe inspiring.  Not just with heady notions of which
   agency, and its history, runs the building; but also seeing the scale
   of the operations.  It's a visceral reminder of the power of the United
   States - both of it's good and bad aspects.​
   ​So, I suggest Mr. Stone was overwhelmed and genuinely convinced of
   what he saw: he wanted to see a behemoth of an organization full
   of sun-glassed covert agents ​running amok.  Rather he saw slightly
   shabbily dressed day workers interspersed with the occasional suit,
   all surrounded by  uniformed members of the five military branches as
   well as those of five other countries.
   Second, I suggest the NSA ( and any other semi-/fully- covert agency )
   can easily "expose" all of its bookkeeping for review without exposing
   anything it doesn't want exposed.  They don't need to be secretive -
   the nature of the organization is so silo'd, looking in from any
   combination of directions would never give any indication of a
   compartment unless one knew where and how to request that compartment
   by name.
   The result is the Review panel feels they came away with a complete
   understanding of the Agency, and the individuals came away with a knew
   understanding of what Power means, and how it is applied into the
   world.  Some of that understanding is valid - some isn't.
   Lastly, I think taking Mr. Stone's words as only about the NSA is a
   mistake.  He was writing to, and about, the Agency employees. Namely,
   suggesting to them they might do better in the future
   to continually re-evaluate their bosses; rather than assuming "father
   knows best."  And this is the best possible oversight - the tens of
   thousands of employees are as American as anyone, they have it in their
   own best interest not to tolerate abuses by their bosses.  Sadly that
   type of oversight is insufficient, but that mindset within the majority
   of employees is crucial and what I think Mr. Stone was trying to
   enrich.
   go easy,
   -daniel