POLITICS -  Draining The "Intelligence" Swamp (17394 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
Message 29 of 936 was Deleted  

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon6/14/17 7:26 AM 
To: All  (30 of 936) 
 7552.30 in reply to 7552.29 

June 13, 2017

          And when the leakers are caught going beyond what is legal, and "breaking" laws, are you, the Democrat underground, going to pay their legal fees, or serve their time for them in jail, or try to fix their destroyed lives?

                                   Reality Winner  Document leaker Reality Winner

http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/dem-congressmens-guide-explains-how-to-leak-secrets/#cdkIvz3a0SUJFUXy.99

Dem congressmen's guide explains how to leak secrets

Federal employees targeted on official government website

WASHINGTON – More than three months before the Justice Department announced a 25-year-old National Security Agency contractor had been arrested for leaking top-secret information to a news outlet, two Democratic members of Congress launched a taxpayer-funded, official government website to show federal employees how to leak government information to the media.

In an article headlined “Federal Employees Guide To Sharing Key Information With The Public,” Reps. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., and Don Beyer, D-Va., are encouraging whistleblowers, specifically within President Trump’s administration, to continue leaking to the media.

“Now more than ever we need whistleblowers to come forward. I created an official website on how to leak to the press,” Lieu tweeted with a link to his official congressional website.

In an act of defiance toward the Trump administration, Lieu and Beyer released a statement in February accompanying their instructions for federal employees and White House staffers who want to leak information to the press.

“Today, Congressman Ted W. Lieu (D | Los Angeles County) and Congressman Don Beyer (D | Virginia) released a resource guide for federal employees who wish to break the Administration’s communications blackout on federal agencies,” the statement reads, going on to say:

The guide explains how to safely and responsibly share information, and encourages employees to “Know Your Rights” and “Know Your Options.” In the “Know Your Rights” section, federal employees can learn about which federal laws apply to them. In the “Know Your Options” section, employees can learn about how to safely disseminate information to agency inspectors general and the press. The resource guide also includes links to an in-depth list of federal whistleblower statutes and information about agency inspectors general.

Lieu charges that the Trump administration has “strapped a muzzle on federal agencies.”

“We believe the American people have a right to know how their government works,” Lieu said in a statement accompanying his guide’s release. “The Trump administration has strapped a muzzle on federal agencies and attacked legitimate whistleblowers. Should federal employees wish to break that silence, we want this to be a resource for the safe and responsible disclosure of information.”

The guide cites laws that apply to federal employees, focusing on the First Amendment and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act as key protections for individuals wanting to leak sensitive information that pertains to the administration’s policies.

The “Know Your Options” section includes links to federal whistleblower statutes and suggests employees use encrypted messages to communicate with the press. Lieu also lists a number of left-leaning media outlets – including the New York Times, the Washington Post, ProPublica, the Intercept and the Guardian – that will accept and publish anonymous leaks.

 
 Reply   Options 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon6/19/17 7:08 AM 
To: All  (31 of 936) 
 7552.31 in reply to 7552.30 

June 19, 2017

            “The former FBI director isn’t above the law and current leadership of the FBI should stop protecting him and take action.” The watchdog group also said it is pursuing a separate legal challenge to the State Department’s failure to “take any action” to retrieve the emails of former Secretary of State Clinton."

http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/did-comey-take-other-government-records-too/#DwleB2dPrLOjFgrt.99

Did Comey take other government records, too?

Judicial Watch grills FBI over former director's leak of official docs to media

A key watchdog on government, Judicial Watch, is demanding the FBI reveal any other government records that fired FBI Director James Comey might have taken with him when he left office, in addition to the notes about his meetings with President Trump.

Comey has testified to Congress that he took notes on a government computer of his meetings with President Trump and later leaked them to the New York Times through a friend. The reporting of the notes prompted the invitation for Comey to testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding claims that President Trump and his team colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 election and tried to shut down investigations into the matter.

Now, the revelation that Comey, who last year famously declined to refer Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information for prosecution, was able to take government records with him as he left office raised questions for Judicial Watch.

The organization has sent a letter to acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe warning that the agency has a responsibility under the Federal Records Act to retrieve all of the government documents Comey took with him. The letter from Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton notes Comey “confirmed that, while in office, he created various memoranda regarding his meetings with President Trump.”

“Mr. Comey also confirmed that, after his departure from the FBI, he provided at least some of these memoranda to a third party, Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman, for the purpose of leaking them to the press. Various media outlets now have reported that Professor Richman has provided these memoranda to the FBI. It is unclear whether he still retains copies of the memoranda.”

The letter argued that’s not the proper place for government records to end up.

“These memoranda were created by Mr. Comey while serving as FBI director, were written on his FBI laptop, and concerned official government business. As such, they indisputably are records subject to the Federal Records Act. 44 U.S.C. §§ 2101-18, 2901-09, 3101-07, and 3301-14,” Fitton wrote.

“The fact that Mr. Comey removed these memoranda from the FBI upon his departure, apparently for the purpose of subsequently leaking them to the press, confirms the FBI’s failure to retain and properly manage its records in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”

Fitton said the even if Comey no longer has possession of the memos, as he now claims, some or all of them may still be in possession of a third party, such as Professor Richman, “and must be recovered.”

“Mr. Comey’s removal of these memoranda also suggests that other records may have been removed by Mr. Comey and may remain in his possession or in the possession of others. If so, these records must be recovered by the FBI as well,” Fitton said.

The leak is just one of many by government officials that have slowed down President Trump’s policy agenda. Critics of the leaks describe the offenders as members of the “Deep State,” or established career bureaucrats within the federal government, many of whom were appointed by President Obama and strongly oppose President Trump.

The document leakers, if discovered, could be charged.

“As you may be aware, the Federal Records Act imposes a direct responsibility on you to take steps to recover any records unlawfully removed from the FBI,” Fitton said.

Specifically, upon learning of ‘any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency,’ you must notify the Archivist of the United States. 44 U.S.C. § 3106,” he warned.

“Upon learning that records have been unlawfully removed from the FBI, you then are required to initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records,” said Fitton.

He warned that Judicial Watch has the right to sue if the proper steps are not taken to pursue and retrieve improperly handled government records.

“Mr. Comey took government records and the FBI and Justice Department are obligated to get them back,” Fitton explained. “The former FBI director isn’t above the law and current leadership of the FBI should stop protecting him and take action.”

The watchdog group also said it is pursuing a separate legal challenge to the State Department’s failure to “take any action” to retrieve the emails of former Secretary of State Clinton.

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon6/20/17 7:43 AM 
To: All  (32 of 936) 
 7552.32 in reply to 7552.31 

June 20, 2017

         "I'm shocked at what the CIA did and what Brennan did," he said. "It seems like he was very hostile to Trump."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/intelligence-community-Oliver-Stone-John-Brennan/2017/06/15/id/796367/

Oliver Stone Slams John Brennan for Anti-Trump Comments During Transition

Filmmaker Oliver Stone on Thursday ripped former CIA Director John Brennan for his and the intelligence community's hostility toward Donald Trump during the presidential transition.

Stone, whose interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin are airing on Showtime this week, accused Brennan of "creating a fear and paranoia without evidence in a time during the transition that we trust our leaders."

His comments came in an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News.

"Trump was, in a sense, slapped in the face," Stone said, adding Brennan was calling Trump "essentially a Manchurian Candidate.

"That's as hostile as it's ever been during a transition."

Before taking office Jan. 20, Trump repeatedly attacked the intelligence community, disparaging its findings Russia meddled in the election – even questioning whether Brennan himself was the "leaker of fake news."

Stone also bashed the spy agencies, telling Carlson they should be investigated because "the deep state" has its own views.

"I'm shocked at what the CIA did and what Brennan did," he said. "It seems like he was very hostile to Trump."

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon6/22/17 7:56 AM 
To: All  (33 of 936) 
 7552.33 in reply to 7552.32 

June 22, 2017

        "What we do know is that the DHS was also caught trying to hack into the Georgia elections. Typical projection from the left. They are accusing others of doing exactly what they do. The left were the obstructionists; the leftists were rigging the election."

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/gowdy-destroys-jeh-johnson-dnc-hacking-claims-victim-crime-not-turn-server-video/

Gowdy Destroys Obama's Department of Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson on DNC Hacking Claims: ‘Why Would the Victim of a Crime Not Turn Over a Server?’

Trey Gowdy destroyed former DHS chief, Jeh Johnson during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

Former DHS chief under Obama, Jeh Johnson said that the DNC, to his ‘disappointment,’ did not cooperate with DHS to respond to the hacks.

The DNC rejected help from the DHS following Russian hacks into its computer systems during the 2016 election cycle, according to former DHS chief Jeh Johnson.

Jeh Johnson also said that he first became aware of intrusions into DNC systems sometime last year in the fall, months after the FBI had learned of the problem.

Trey Gowdy: “If they had turned the server over to either you or Director Comey, maybe we would have known more and maybe there would have been more for you to report. So I guess what I’m asking you is, why would the victim of a crime not turn over a server to the Intelligence community or to law enforcement?”

This is the million dollar question. If the DNC is a victim of hacking, then why hasn’t any intelligence agency taken a look at the servers? Don’t they want to get to the bottom of the Russian hacking? Don’t the Democrats want to prevent this from happening again? Clearly they have something to hide otherwise they would hand over their servers.

Jeh Johnson replied, “Uh, I’m not going to argue with you, sir. Uh, that was a leading question and I’ll agree to be led.”

What we do know is that the DHS was also caught trying to hack into the Georgia elections. Typical projection from the left. They are accusing others of doing exactly what they do. The left were the obstructionists; the leftists were rigging the election.

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon6/22/17 8:04 AM 
To: All  (34 of 936) 
 7552.34 in reply to 7552.33 

 

 

  • Edited June 22, 2017 8:08 am  by  WEBELIAHU
 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon6/26/17 7:19 AM 
To: All  (35 of 936) 
 7552.35 in reply to 7552.34 

June 26, 2017

           “This is the type of unequal justice that Americans despise. No special counsel in the IRS targeting investigation. No special counsel for the Clinton email investigation. But if it’s about protecting Comey’s reputation and hurting President Trump, then of course there has to be a special counsel,”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/23/republican-lawmakers-call-for-investigation-into-james-comey-and-robert-mueller/

Republican Lawmakers Call for Investigation Into James Comey and Robert Mueller

Three Republican House Oversight Committee members on Friday called for an investigation into former FBI Director James Comey and Special Counsel Robert Mueller for acting in a partisan manner and applying double standards when it came to the Obama and Trump administrations.

Reps. Jim Jordan (OH), Mark Meadows (NC), and Jody Hice (GA) said Comey misled the American people last year when he agreed to then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s request that he call an investigation into Hillary Clinton a “matter” instead of an investigation.

“He did it willfully. He did it intentionally. And he did it at the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch,” they wrote in a piece published on foxnews.com.

They also said Comey misled the American people in the early weeks of the Trump administration by “furthering the perception that President Trump was under investigation, when in fact he was not.”

“He again did this willfully and intentionally,” they wrote.

They also pointed out that Comey recently admitted having a friend leak one of his memos detailing a private conversation he had with Trump, after Trump fired him.

Comey admitted doing so to spark the appointment of a special counsel for the investigation into Russian interference and any collusion with the Trump campaign.

That person appointed was Robert Mueller — Comey’s “mentor and predecessor,” they wrote.

“The American people want justice to be blind. They want equal justice and equal protection for everyone. But Mr. Comey’s actions continue to call his impartiality, and the impartiality of the Holder and Lynch Justice departments, into question,” they said.

They pointed out that on May 7, 2014, the House passed a resolution calling for a special counsel to investigate the IRS targeting of conservatives for their political beliefs.

“Comey and Attorney General Eric Holder blocked the appointment. This despite the fact that the lead investigator they assigned to the case, Barbara Bosserman, was a max-out contributor to President Obama’s reelection campaign,” they wrote.

“This is the type of unequal justice that Americans despise. No special counsel in the IRS targeting investigation. No special counsel for the Clinton email investigation. But if it’s about protecting Comey’s reputation and hurting President Trump, then of course there has to be a special counsel,” they said.

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon6/29/17 7:17 AM 
To: All  (36 of 936) 
 7552.36 in reply to 7552.35 

June 29, 2017

         "Mueller's probe is the functional equivalent of a general warrant: a boundless writ to search for incriminating evidence. It is the very evil the Fourth Amendment was adopted to forbid: a scorch-the-earth investigation in the absence of probable cause that a crime has been committed."

https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/21/muellers-empire-legions-lawyers-bottomless-budget-limitless-jurisdiction/

Mueller’s Empire: Legions of Lawyers, Bottomless Budget, Limitless Jurisdiction

So I’ve been wondering: Why on earth does a prosecutor, brought in to investigate a case in which there is no apparent crime, need a staff of 14 lawyers?

Or, I should say, “14 lawyers and counting.” According to the press spokesman for special counsel Robert Mueller—yeah, he’s got a press spokesman, too—there are “several more in the pipeline.”

Concededly, none of Mueller’s recruits requires Senate confirmation, as do Justice Department officials—notwithstanding that the former may end up playing a far more consequential role in the fate of the Trump administration. But does it seem strange to anyone else that, by comparison, the president of the United States has managed to get—count ’em—three appointees confirmed to Justice Department positions in five months?

A special counsel, the need for whom is far from obvious, has in just a few days staffed up with four times the number of lawyers. And all for a single investigation that the FBI has described as a counterintelligence probe—i.e., not a criminal investigation, the kind for which you actually need lawyers.  

The way this is supposed to work is: the Justice Department first identifies a likely crime, and then assigns a prosecutor to investigate it. Here, by contrast, there are no parameters imposed on the special counsel’s jurisdiction. Mueller is loosed—with 14 lawyers and more coming—to conduct what I’ve called a “fishing expedition.”

Oh, and about those three Justice Department appointees: One of them, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has already recused himself from the investigation in question—the department’s most high profile undertaking. Another, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, is reportedly weighing whether he, too, should bow out. Perhaps he figures he has already done quite enough, having sicced a special-counsel investigation on the Trump Administration by flouting both the regulation that requires a basis for a criminal investigation before a special counsel is appointed, and the regulation that requires limiting the special counsel’s jurisdiction to the specific factual matter that triggers this criminal investigation.

The way this is supposed to work is: the Justice Department first identifies a likely crime, and then assigns a prosecutor to investigate it. Here, by contrast, there are no parameters imposed on the special counsel’s jurisdiction. Mueller is loosed—with 14 lawyers and more coming—to conduct what I’ve called a “fishing expedition.” But it is actually worse than that, as sagely observed in these pages by my friend John Eastman, the Claremont Institute scholar and former Chapman Law School dean. Mueller's probe is the functional equivalent of a general warrant: a boundless writ to search for incriminating evidence. It is the very evil the Fourth Amendment was adopted to forbid: a scorch-the-earth investigation in the absence of probable cause that a crime has been committed.

For now, Mueller appears utterly without limits, in his writ and in his resources. As the ease with which he has staffed up shows, it is not hard to recruit lawyers. All you need is money. Mueller has a bottomless budget, thanks to a bit of Treasury Department chicanery known as “permanent, indefinite appropriations.”

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon7/3/17 7:51 AM 
To: All  (37 of 936) 
 7552.37 in reply to 7552.36 

July 3, 2017

          "In all of this there are only two real crimes that we are certain of: James Comey's leak of his memo on his conversation in the Oval Office and the unmasking and leaking of the name of former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn."

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/obamas_criminal_enterprise_collapsing.html#ixzz4liUjM8V4

Obama's Criminal Enterprise Collapsing

As former FBI Director James Comey’s best friend, Robert Mueller, stocks his Seinfeld investigation-about-nothing with every Democratic lawyer and Hillary and/or Obama donor he can find, we are treated to the delicious irony of collusion with Russia being confirmed -- and the colluder-in-chief being Ex-president Barack Hussein Obama.

Even Obama’s Democrat supporters are now acknowledging he knew about Russia’s hacking of the DNC and Podesta emails. They are acknowledging that he did nothing but are not acknowledging the reason why – that he thought Hillary Clinton was going to succeed him and he wanted to do nothing to offend the Russians to whom he had once famously promised more “flexibility.”As Fox News Politics reported:

President Trump criticized his predecessor for allegedly doing “nothing” about reports that Russia interfered in last year’s presidential campaign, in a recent interview.“I just heard today for the first time that (former President) Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it,” Trump said in the interview set to air Sunday on "Fox & Friends Weekend." “The CIA gave him information on Russia a long time before the election. … If he had the information, why didn't he do something about it?”

Even Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, acknowledged that President Obama’s refusal to embarrass his Russian friends by doing nothing was a mistake:

President Obama’s decision to not act sooner on Russian election interference last year was “a very serious mistake,” says California Rep. Adam Schiff.

“I think the administration needed to call out Russia earlier, and needed to act to deter and punish Russia earlier and I think that was a very serious mistake,” Schiff said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.

Schiff, the top ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Obama was hesitant to confront Russia over its active measures campaign for fear of being seen as helping Hillary Clinton and of fueling Donald Trump’s allegations that the election was being “rigged” against him.

That is the excuse made by those caught with their hands in the cookie jar. What happened to our democracy being at stake, the sanctity of our electoral process being violated? It was okay to jeopardize our national security through inaction as long as it was thought it might embarrass Hillary? But when Trump won, suddenly it became an issue for which he was responsible?

As noted, Obama’s collusion with the Russians began years earlier when he conspired to gut U.S. missile defense efforts in Europe. As Investor's Business Daily noted over a year ago, President Obama had other plans and his betrayal of our allies was exquisitely ironic:

Yet within hours of Medvedev's election as president in 2008, the Russian announced that Moscow would deploy SS-26 missiles in his country's enclave of Kaliningrad situated between our NATO allies Poland and Lithuania.

He wanted the U.S. to abandon plans to deploy missile interceptors in Poland and warning radars in the Czech Republic designed to counter a future threat from Iran.

What did President Obama do? He caved in and notified the Poles in a midnight phone call on Sept. 17, 2009 — the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland — that we were pulling the plug on that system due to Russian objections.

Putin then watched in 2012 as Obama promised Medvedev at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, that after his re-election he would have more "flexibility" to weaken missile defense, which would help him fulfill his dream of U.S. disarmament.

Hillary Clinton herself was not above colluding with the Russians, as she did in the Uranium One Deal in which Clinton Foundation donors benefited from her enabling the transfer of 20 percent of our uranium supplies to Russia.  That deal was one reason Putin was probably rooting for Hillary, not Trump.

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon7/7/17 7:56 AM 
To: All  (38 of 936) 
 7552.38 in reply to 7552.37 

July 7, 2017

          "According to the document, 78 leaks were connected to the Russia probe, disclosing information intercepted by the intelligence community, interviews conducted by the FBI — as well as grand jury subpoenas, and "the workings of a secret surveillance court."

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/senate-report-white-house-unprecedented/2017/07/06/id/800203/

Senate Report: WH Facing 'Unprecedented Wave' of Media Leaks

The Trump administration has faced an average of one leak per day to news organizations during its first 126 days — "seven times faster" than the Obama and George W. Bush administrations combined — that have been "potentially damaging" to national security, according to a new Senate report released Thursday.

Seventy-eight of the leaks concerned investigations into Russian involvement during the November election and issues of possible collusion with the Trump campaign, according to the report.

"To ensure the security of our country’s most sensitive information, federal law enforcement officials ought to thoroughly investigate leaks of potentially sensitive information flowing at an alarming rate," the document's executive summary said.

The 24-page report was developed by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson.

It was submitted to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and calls on the nation's law enforcement agencies to increase their investigations into such breaches.

The document — "State Secrets: How an Avalanche of Media Leaks is Harming National Security" — cited an "unprecedented wave" of "alarming" and "potentially damaging" leaks to media organizations.

Johnson noted in a letter to Sessions with the report that "if anything," the document constituted only a "conservative estimate" of the number of leaks during the Trump administration.

According to the report, President Donald Trump's White House experienced one leak per day in news reports between his inauguration on Jan. 20 and May 25, his 126th day in office.

The nature of the breaches were measured based on standards specified in a 2009 executive order signed by then-President Barack Obama.

"Articles published by a range of national news organizations between Jan. 20 and May 25, 2017, included at least 125 stories with leaked information potentially damaging to national security," according to the summary.

Additionally, the leaks were "potential violations of federal law, punishable by jail time.

"It is also apparent that the arguments often used to justify leaks are at odds with the Trump administration — that leakers are bringing to light potential illegality, unwise policies, or concerns about the President’s temperament — have no legal basis," the report noted.

According to the document, 78 leaks were connected to the Russia probe, disclosing information intercepted by the intelligence community, interviews conducted by the FBI — as well as grand jury subpoenas, and "the workings of a secret surveillance court."

 

Navigate this discussion: 1-8 9-18 19-28 29-38 39-48 49-58 ... 909-918 919-928 929-936
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.