Author Topic: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State  (Read 238019 times)




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #803 on: March 07, 2019, 09:32:28 AM »
From BD's "Norms Watch" piece above:

1)

"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Feb. 20 that a woman who left Alabama to join ISIS in Syria when she was 20 years old is not a U.S. citizen and would not be allowed to return. Hoda Muthana had said she made a mistake in joining the group and now wants to return with her 18-month-old son. Pompeo claimed that Muthana has no “legal basis” to claim American citizenship, but gave no details on how the determination was made. News reports said the decision might have been based on the fact that her father had been a Yemeni diplomat posted at the United Nations when she was born. But a family representative told the New York Times that wasn’t a valid reason to deny her claim to citizenship because Muthana was born in New Jersey a month after her father had completed his term."

Well, if we go beyond what an apparently anonymous "family representative" says we discover that the father's status here in the US at the time of her birth was still based upon his diplomatic status.


2)

"Voters who support Trump often excuse even his most blatant lies by arguing that “all politicians lie.” But the Washington Post’s Fact Checker database by early November had catalogued 6,420 false or misleading claims by Trump over 649 days in office. In his Feb. 5 State of the Union (SOTU) address alone, he made nearly 30 statements containing “stretched facts and dubious figures,” according to the Post. CNN analysts John Kirby and Samantha Vinograd commented that Trump’s SOTU “indicated that he will continue to focus on manufactured emergencies that he ostensibly thinks play well politically, rather than on a prioritized set of threats to American national security.”

Jeff Bezos's Pravda on the Potamac?  CNN?  Seriously?  Spend some time surfing the Media thread for a numerous examples of dishonest slanting and propaganda.

3)

"CNN anchor Jake Tapper produced a package exposing Trump’s lies during a rally in El Paso on one of the president’s favorite subjects of demagoguery — the alleged national security threat posed by migrants, a risk contradicted by the facts. Brian Klaas, a political scientist at University College London, said in a comment on Twitter, “Trump’s lies are not fibs or misleading statements. They are Orwellian in that they are complete inversions of the truth.”

C'mon!

4) 

"Trump’s vociferous public criticism of the Special Counsel and congressional investigations into possible coordination between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 elections has become familiar — “a witch hunt,” he calls it. An analysis at the New York Times counted more than 1,100 instances of condemnation from Trump’s Twitter page, official speeches, rallies, media interviews, and press events. He calls those who cooperate with the probes “rats.” The comments also reflect actions he has taken to pressure those who aid or fail to hinder the investigations or to install officials who he sees as potential loyalists into positions where they might be able to undermine the investigations."

We've been around the Mulberry Bush on the investigation by Mueller, Andrew Weissman, Hillary lawyer _______ Rhee and various other Dem donor lawyers etc. quite a bit around here.  The conclusory language here adds zero to the conversation.

5)

"The U.S. gave the required six-month notice to Russia on Feb. 1 that it intends to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The treaty dates to 1987 and the waning days of the Soviet Union. Withdrawal risks a domino effect of undermining other treaties. Germany is so concerned about a pattern of U.S. action, including the planned INF withdrawal, that it is reassessing its longstanding arrangement that puts Germany under the U.S. nuclear shield."

Let's see, this would be the economic powerhouse of Germany currently spending 1.4% (working from memory) of GDP on NATO instead of the 2% promised? (IIRC they have SIX working military jets) The Germany that looks to back stab NATO ally Poland by seeking to bypass its receipt of natural gas from Russia?  Instead of buying it from the US?  The Germany that back stabs our efforts to reign in Iran's nuke program? 


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10813
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #804 on: March 07, 2019, 10:33:29 AM »
also from Norm whoever this "partisan" is:

"declaring a national emergency as an end-run around Congress

President Donald Trump declared a national emergency on Feb. 15 to gain the authority that Congress refused to give him to fund the construction of a wall on the southern border. It was a move intended to keep a campaign promise to his base, though that pledge had included forcing Mexico to pay for it.

At least 16 states and a host of organizations filed suit to stop the move, and Democrats in Congress passed a resolution to nullify the declaration, sending it to the Senate for a vote (Trump has vowed to veto the bill). At least 58 former U.S. national security officials from Democratic and Republican administrations signed a letter asserting that “no plausible assessment of the evidence” would justify the emergency declaration and that, in fact, it could undermine U.S. interests by diverting funding from necessary military expenditures and weakening America’s diplomacy. A poll conducted after the announcement found that more than 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of the emergency declaration, and almost that many don’t believe there is an emergency at the southern border and think Trump is abusing his presidential authority.

Earlier in the month, the Pentagon announced it would send 3,750 additional U.S. forces to the southern border for three months to support border agents, raising the total number of active-duty forces there to about 4,350. The rationale of the subsequent emergency declaration for using the military construction funding relies in part on the presence of military forces at the border."

So these same people who have decided on their OWN not to enforce immigration law are annoyed that someone is trying to enforce the law?

These people are corrupt officials
if they won't enforce the law to protect us then yup it has gotten to a point of emergency
We have heard nexuses for decades
and now we can see many are not only looking the other way when immigrants are flooding the country illegally they actually are blocking enforcement of it.

I seriously doubt 6 in 10 Americans are against the wall.
I don't believe that for a second


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10813
    • View Profile
pentagon to approve funding for wall
« Reply #805 on: March 07, 2019, 04:58:39 PM »
from soldiers pay and pensions

My first reaction what the hell is this deep state shit !

They can't reduce by one F 35 to pay for the damn wall

This is obviously to make Trump look bad:

https://apnews.com/ba6c2bc1fa024393801131bfbaa9cd89

Even the pentagon refuses to accommodate the CIC

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #806 on: March 07, 2019, 07:04:15 PM »
I'd want a better source than Dick Durbin on that , , ,

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #807 on: March 07, 2019, 07:04:55 PM »
I'd want a better source than Dick Durbin on that , , ,

Exactly.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
JW gets judicial order against recalcitrant FBI
« Reply #809 on: March 16, 2019, 12:55:31 PM »
   
 

Judicial Watch's Weekly Update: Court Victory Against Deep State FBI

 

Judge Declares FBI’s Search for Peter Strzok Records Inadequate
 
A petulant child or employee will perform a task halfway and wait to see if he can get away with it. Such seems to be the strategy of the entire Deep State bureaucracy.
 
The FBI is particularly good at this, and we are particularly good at calling them on it. Luckily for the American people we have judges who respect the Freedom of Information Act.
 
A case in point: U.S. District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper for the District of Columbia has agreed with that the FBI did not adequately search for records related to the removal and reassignment of Peter Strzok from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team. He was a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI.
 
In granting our request, Judge Cooper ordered the FBI to further search their records.  (The original, deficient search had only returned 14 pages.)

The order comes in the December 2017 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit we filed after the DOJ failed to respond to and August 17, 2017, request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (No. 1:17-cv-02682)). Judicial Watch seeks:
 
•   All records regarding the assignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok to the special counsel’s investigation led by former Director Robert Mueller.
•   All records related to the reassignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok from the special counsel’s investigation to another position within the FBI.
•   All SF-50 and/or SF-52 employment forms, as well as all related records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the FBI and any other individual or entity.
 
On July 31, 2018, we released the first 14 pages of FBI documents produced in this FOIA lawsuit, showing that Strzok insisted on retaining his FBI security clearance before moving to the Mueller team and confirmed that Strzok played a pivotal role in the flawed Hillary Clinton email investigation.
 
In his decision, Judge Cooper called the FBI’s search “overly cramped:”
 
Notwithstanding that Judicial Watch’s request referred to Mueller by name … the Bureau searched only for the term “special counsel.” But surely one would expect that Agent Strzok and other FBI personnel might use the Special Counsel’s name — “Mueller” — rather than his title when discussing Strzok’s assignment to the Russia investigation, especially in informal emails. Another logical variation on “special counsel” is its commonly used acronym “SCO,” which appears to be used within the Special Counsel’s Office itself, as reflected by documents that the FBI uncovered and produced to Judicial Watch.
 
The ruling also stated that the FBI did not adequately respond to our FOIA lawsuit because it limited its search to only Strzok’s email account.

Judge Cooper ordered that the FBI must conduct a new search that includes “the email accounts of any of Agent Strzok’s superiors or other Bureau officials who were involved in the decision to assign him to the Special Counsel’s Office or the decision to reassign him to the FBI’s Human Resources Division after his removal from the Mueller investigation.”

The FBI must also expand its search to other forms of communication in addition to email. Given Strzok’s well-known use of text messaging, “it strikes the Court as reasonably likely that he discussed his assignment to the Special Counsel’s Office in text messages—which again is the standard for assessing an agency’s selection of search locations.”

Strzok was reportedly removed from the Mueller investigative team in August 2017 and reassigned to a human resources position after it was discovered that he and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page exchanged text messages during the Clinton investigation and 2016 election season that raised serious questions about his anti-Trump/pro-Clinton bias. They were also engaged in an extramarital affair. Strzok infamously texted “there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.”

Strzok reportedly oversaw the FBI’s interviews of former National Security Adviser, General Michael Flynn; changed former FBI Director James Comey’s language about Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her illicit email server from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless;” played a lead role in the FBI’s interview of Clinton and is suspected of being responsible for using the unverified dossier to obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on President Trump’s campaign.

The Court rightly slammed the FBI for its gamesmanship in searching for records about one of the most notorious FBI agents of all time – Peter Strzok. The FBI leadership is in cover-up mode on its abuses targeting President Trump, and we’re pleased a federal court pushed back on this stonewall.
 
 
Judicial Watch Sues for Key Anti-Trump Coup Doc
 
Perhaps you remember the 1964 film “Seven Days in May,” in which a Deep State cabal plotted a takeover of the government. Burt Lancaster starred, and Rod Serling, appropriately, wrote script.
 
Now we’re living through a real life “Eight Days in May” featuring Rod Rosenstein, the disgraced former FBI official Andrew McCabe and a slew of characters conniving to bring down a real life President.
 
In the latest scene we are suing the Department of Justice for the communications of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8 and May 17, 2017.
 
We filed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit after the DOJ failed to respond to a September 21, 2018, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00481)). We are seeking:
 
Any and all e-mails, text messages, or other records of communication addressed to or received by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8, 2017, and May 22, 2017.
 
This time period is critical. On May 8, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memo to President Trump recommending that FBI Director James Comey be fired. The next day, President Trump fired Comey. On May 17 Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
 
Between May 8 and May 17, Rosenstein met with then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other senior Justice Department FBI officials and discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump and whether Rosenstein and others should wear a wire to secretly record conversations with the President.
 
We previously filed a FOIA lawsuit seeking the communications of former FBI Deputy Director McCabe, the Office of the Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or the Office of Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein discussing the 25th Amendment or presidential fitness. Additionally, that lawsuit seeks all recordings made by any official in the Office of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General of meetings in the Executive Office of the President or Vice President.
 
These critical days in May, a scant three months into President Trump’s term, included extraordinary targeting of President Trump by Rod Rosenstein and other Deep State officials at the DOJ and FBI. Our focused FOIA lawsuit aims to uncover exactly what Mr. Rosenstein’s role was in any discussions to overthrow President Trump.
 
I don’t have much use for Hollywood, but sometimes it ominously foreshadows reality.
 
 
Judicial Watch Files Ethics Complaint Against Congressman Adam Schiff
 
The plot deep within the Justice Department to bring down President Trump is but one of three legs: The DOJ/FBI maneuver has been given covering fire all along by the media, and it has been buttressed by members of the Congress, whose unhinged behavior has seriously eroded that institution’s credibility.
 
No one has been more eager to get in front of the cameras and spout knowingly false conspiratorcy theories than Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who is, remarkably, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
 
We have now filed an official complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics about Rep. Schiff’s controversial communications and contacts with two congressional witnesses: Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS and Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal lawyer.
 
We are asking that Rep. Schiff be investigated in connection with recent revelations that he met with Simpson in Aspen, Colorado, in July 2018 and that he and his staff coordinated with Michael Cohen on Cohen’s recent testimony to congressional committees. Cohen’s testimony is alleged to be false in several important respects.
 
You will recall that we filed an ethics complaint on April 13, 2018, against Rep. Schiff and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) for improperly confirming classified information in violation of House rules but the Committee has yet to take any public action on the complaint.
 
Rep. Schiff has an ethics problem. His and his staff’s irregular communications with anti-Trump witnesses reflect poorly on the credibility of the House and its committees’ investigations. It has long been apparent that Rep. Schiff can’t be trusted to lead the Intelligence Committee, so we hope that Democrats on the Ethics Committee stop protecting Mr. Schiff and take action.
 
In our complaint we elaborate on our concerns:
 
Dear Chairman Skaggs,
 
Judicial Watch is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government and fidelity to the rule of law. We regularly monitor congressional ethics issues as part of our anti-corruption mission.
 
This letter serves as our official complaint to the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) concerning the activities of Rep. Adam Schiff. Rep. Schiff appears to have violated House Code of Official Conduct, Rule 23, clauses 1 and 2, by inappropriately communicating with witnesses. Clauses 1 and 2 provide:
 
1. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.
 
2. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House and to the rules of duly constituted committees thereof.
 
Rep. Adam Schiff attended the Aspen Security Forum conference in July 2018, which was also attended by Glenn Simpson, the founder of the firm Fusion GPS. Press reports have detailed evidence of a meeting and discussion between Rep. Schiff and Glenn Simpson at the July 2018 Aspen Security Forum. As noted in The Hill newspaper:
 
At the time of the encounter, Simpson was an important witness in the House Intelligence Committee probe who had given sworn testimony about alleged, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
 
Fusion GPS is the political opposition research firm involved in procuring “unverified” information claiming the Trump presidential campaign had “colluded” with Russia, among other things. That Fusion GPS-supplied information was the basis upon which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) obtained Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance warrants against Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page.
 
Mr. Simpson’s leadership of Fusion GPS and his centrality to events resulted in his having to testify before congressional committees or their staffs. Specifically, Mr. Simpson testified before the House Intelligence Committee, of which Rep. Schiff was the ranking Democratic member, on October 16, 2018 – approximately three (3) months after the Aspen Security Forum.
 
We note that following revelations in 2017 that Rep. Devin Nunes had informed President Trump that U.S. intelligence agencies had been engaging in “incidental collection” of his campaign’s communications, Rep. Schiff demanded that Rep. Nunes, then Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, recuse himself from any investigations involving alleged Trump collusion with Russia. Indeed, Rep. Schiff wrote the following on twitter:
 
This is not a recommendation I make lightly … But in much the same way that the attorney general [Jeff Sessions] was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation after failing to inform the Senate of his meetings with Russian officials, I believe the public cannot have the necessary confidence that matters involving the president’s campaign or transition team can be objectively investigated or overseen by the chairman.
 
Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi concurred with Rep. Schiff’s call for Mr. Nunes to recuse himself.
 
The July 2018 contacts between Rep. Schiff and Mr. Simpson create, at a minimum, the appearance of impropriety. As a result of Rep. Schiff’s previously undisclosed, private discussions with Mr. Simpson, the public’s confidence in Mr. Schiff’s ability to objectively and impartially carry out his duties as Committee Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been gravely damaged.
 
Further, Rep. Schiff’s contacts with Mr. Michael Cohen should also be scrutinized in the same light as the Simpson contacts. Journalists have reported:
 
President Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen told House investigators this week that staff for Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., traveled to New York at least four times to meet with him for over 10 hours immediately before last month’s high-profile public testimony, according to two sources familiar with the matter – as Republicans question whether the meetings amounted to coaching a witness.
 
The sources said the sessions covered a slew of topics addressed during the public hearing before the oversight committee – including the National Enquirer ‘s “Catch and Kill” policy, American Media CEO David Pecker and the alleged undervaluing of President Trump’s assets.
 
Again, Rep. Schiff’ s conduct creates the appearance of unethical collusion and synchronization of efforts that calls into question whether Cohen’s testimony was a legitimate congressional hearing or well-rehearsed political theatre.
 
During Mr. Cohen’s congressional testimony, he was questioned by Rep. Mike Turner concerning the number, nature and subject of his [Cohen’s] contacts with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Rep Jim Jordan pressed Cohen on the subject in subsequent questioning. Cohen hesitantly acknowledged that he had spoken with Schiff “about topics that were going to be raised at the upcoming hearing.”
 
A pattern of conduct on the part of Rep. Schiff in these matters would exponentially increase the gravity of the prejudice and harm to the public’s confidence in the institution of the House of Representatives.
 
Rep. Schiff’s conduct and contacts with witnesses must be treated with the same gravity that Reps. Schiff and Pelosi accorded Rep. Nunes’s actions. Rep. Nunes recused himself for a time from certain oversight responsibilities with respect to the Russia-Trump investigations.
 
In the least, Rep. Schiff and his staff communications with Glenn Simpson and Michael Cohen, undermine the “credibility of the House” and its committee proceedings, especially given Mr. Cohen’s subsequent alleged false testimony.
 
We call upon the OCE to investigate Rep. Schiff and his previously undisclosed, inappropriate contact with key witnesses in congressional investigation over which that Member holds significant sway.
 
Thank you for your attention.
 
The ethics process in the House is a mess so I don’t expect something quickly to happen, but it is important that we put the House on official notice so no politician there has an excuse to let Adam Schiff 'suntoward behavior slide.
 
Clinton Email Scandal Witness Testimony Begins
 
In January U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered senior Obama Administration officials — including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap – to respond under oath to our questions regarding Benghazi and the Clinton email scandal.
 
We now have a schedule for the depositions.
 
This court-ordered discovery comes in our July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:
 
Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
 
Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.
 
Remember that this lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.
 
Our discovery will seek answers to: 
•   Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;
•   whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and
•   whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.
The confirmed discovery schedule now includes:
 
March 12: State Department’s responses to interrogatories and document requests were due.
 
March 14: Deposition of Justin Cooper, a former aide to Bill Clinton who reportedly had no security clearance and is believed to have played a key role in setting up Hillary Clinton’s non-government email system.
 
April 5: Deposition of John Hackett, a State Department records official “immediately responsible for responding to requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act.”
 
April 16: Deposition of Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Hillary Clinton’s former senior advisor and deputy chief of staff.
 
April 23: Deposition of Sheryl Walter, former State Department Director of the Office of Information Programs and Services/Global Information Services.
 
April 26: Deposition of Gene Smilansky, a State Department lawyer.
 
April 30. Deposition of Monica Tillery, a State Department official.
 
May 7: Deposition of Jonathon Wasser, who was a management analyst on the Executive Secretariat staff. Wasser worked for Deputy Director Clarence Finney and was the State Department employee who actually conducted the searches for records in response to FOIA requests to the Office of the Secretary.
 
May 14: Deposition of Clarence Finney, the deputy director of the Executive Secretariat staff who was the principal advisor and records management expert in the Office of the Secretary responsible for control of all correspondence and records for Hillary Clinton and other State Department officials.
 
June 11: 30(b)(6) Deposition, which will be designated by the State Department.
 
June 13: Deposition of Heather Samuelson, the former State Department senior advisor who helped facilitate the State Department’s receipt and release of Hillary Clinton’s emails.
 
As yet to be determined is the deposition date for Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell, who wrote a March 2, 2009, internal memorandum titled “Use of Blackberries on Mahogany Row,” in which he strongly advised that the devices not be allowed.
 
Written questions under oath are to be answered by:
 
Monica Hanley, Hillary Clinton’s former confidential assistant at the State Department.
 
Lauren Jiloty, Clinton’s former special assistant.
 
E.W. Priestap, is serving as assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division and helped oversee both the Clinton email and the 2016 presidential campaign investigations. Priestap testified in a separate lawsuit that Clinton was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts.
 
Susan Rice, President Obama’s former UN ambassador who appeared on Sunday television news shows following the Benghazi attacks, blaming a “hateful video.” Rice was also Obama’s national security advisor involved in the “unmasking” the identities of senior Trump officials caught up in the surveillance of foreign targets.
 
Ben Rhodes, an Obama-era White House deputy strategic communications adviser who attempted to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”
 
We’re doing the heavy lifting in the Clinton email scandal, even as Congress dropped the ball and DOJ and State continued to obstruct our quest for the truth. The Court in our case wants real answers on the Clinton email scandal, which is why our request for basic discovery was granted.
 
Judicial Watch is #1 on FOIA!
Since 2001 we have led all nonprofit organizations in filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, according to figures released late last year by The FOIA Project of Syracuse University.
We are announcing this in honor of “Sunshine Week,” March 10-16, which is an “annual nationwide celebration of access to public information.”
 
According to the FOIAproject.org’s most recent study, we were again No. 1 on the top ten list of most frequent Nonprofit/Advocacy Groups (Jan 21, 2001-July 2018) challenging federal government withholding in court and for the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations.
 
Overall Top 10 FOIA Filers (Jan 21, 2001 – July 2018)
Rank         Plaintiff in FOIA Suit   Number Filed
1.           Judicial Watch   391
2.           American Civil Liberties Union   130
3.           Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility   94
4.           Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington     88
5.           Electronic Privacy Information Center   74
6.           Natural Resources Defense Council   59
7.           Center for Biological Diversity   47
8.           Cause of Action Institute   44
9.           American Oversight   43
10.           Electronic Frontier Foundation   43





The FOIA Project “aims to: (1) create a shaming mechanism by which agencies and officials who ignore the law are held accountable, and (2) arm the public with the full record of FOIA efforts that have and haven’t worked, so anyone can more effectively surmount frequently used roadblocks to public access.”
 
We use the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to uncover misconduct by government officials and hold to account those who engage in corrupt activities. When agencies balk at releasing information that is of value to the public, we sue.
 
The Freedom of Information Act was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1966 to improve public access to government records. The FOIA Project says there is wide agreement that the FOIA’s administrative process has many flaws, with federal agencies frequently resisting its mandates by either refusing to provide properly requested records or ignoring the requirements that the documents be made available within specified time periods.
 
The most-sued agency is the Department of Justice, which has been the defendant in 2,312 FOIA suits since 2001. Within the DOJ, the FBI has been the most sued division with 712 suits. We frequently clash with the DOJ and FBI in court, often in cases involving IRS malfeasance, the Clinton email scandal, and the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation. Judicial Watch currently is pursuing 40 lawsuits against the DOJ.
 
We are the most important transparency watchdog organization in the country. For 25 years, we’ve led the way in holding the government to account as both the media and Congress have gone AWOL. Most of what we know about government corruption – from Clinton emails to Deep State abuses – are as a result of our historic FOIA lawsuits.
 
We couldn’t have done this without the loyalty of our many supporters. Thank you.
 
Until next week,


 

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton
 




« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 12:57:23 PM by Crafty_Dog »


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
The three tiers of American anarcho-tyranny
« Reply #811 on: March 26, 2019, 12:53:01 PM »
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/03/26/jussie-smollett-charges-dropped/

1. Rich/powerful/famous/elites (Leftists) have the top tier. Hillary Clinton and Jussie Smolett are good examples.

2. Illegal Aliens enjoy their own degrees of protection and rewards. As do the left's cultivated underclass voters.

3. The bottom tier is the tax cattle that consist of the remaining productive elements of American society. No one is cutting this group a break and this group is increasingly the object of outright hatred.



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: The three tiers of American anarcho-tyranny
« Reply #812 on: March 26, 2019, 02:17:59 PM »
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/03/26/jussie-smollett-charges-dropped/

1. Rich/powerful/famous/elites (Leftists) have the top tier. Hillary Clinton and Jussie Smolett are good examples.

2. Illegal Aliens enjoy their own degrees of protection and rewards. As do the left's cultivated underclass voters.

3. The bottom tier is the tax cattle that consist of the remaining productive elements of American society. No one is cutting this group a break and this group is increasingly the object of outright hatred.

Another perfect example: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/380494.php

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
You’re A Sucker For Not Believing That The System Is Rigged
« Reply #813 on: March 29, 2019, 02:43:44 PM »
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/03/28/youre-a-sucker-for-not-believing-that-the-system-is-rigged-n2543819

You’re A Sucker For Not Believing That The System Is Rigged
 Kurt Schlichter

Imagine you spent two years completely screwing up at your job, I mean not merely getting every single thing wrong but loudly, proudly getting in everyone else’s face about how right you are. You’d get fired, terminated, 86’d, and Schiff-canned. But not the mainstream media. The media hacks failed for two years-plus, nonstop and without equivocation, but are they ever going to be held to account? No, they’re just going to gather in a big circle and Pulitzer each other.

Imagine you committed a racial hate crime where you falsely accused people who didn’t look or think like you of a horrible atrocity, and that you’d have gladly picked some poor saps with the wrong skin tone out of a line-up and sent them to prison for decades given the chance. Now imagine the two half-wits you hired to help you managed to get caught on video buying their stereotype get-up and spilled it all to the fuzz, though the fact you paid them with a check – because you’re a criminal mastermind – was already enough to get a grand jury to indict your sorry AOC. Now, what are the chances the DA is going to transform your 16 felony counts into a $10K fine and a couple days community servicing? Your chances of said outcome are poor. They are poor because your pals are neither Mrs. Obama or Willie Brown’s gal pal.

Now imagine that you studied really hard while the rich kids partied and smoked dope and splattered water on you by running their BMWs through puddles as you walked home from high school. Imagine your last name is “Chang,” or that your dad is a soldier and not a hedge fund manager, or that your mom is a waitress and not a TV bimbo. Now imagine how you feel when Durwood Richguy IV gets admitted to Harvard when he can’t count past 10 with his Gucci loafers on and you get slotted on a waiting list for Gumbo State.

Imagine you handled classified information and you took it home and put it on your iPad. Do you think the FBI would be super-concerned with your feels about it and give you a pass, like Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit got from Jim Comey, or would you be bunking with Michael Cohen? And speaking of that Looming Doofus, if you lied under oath in front of Congress, do you think you’d be free to wander the country, posting stupid tweets of yourself staring at trees and beaches?

Yeah, sure, that would totally happen.

The American dream has morphed into the American grift. And we normal people are the marks.

Let’s stop pretending. Let’s stop accepting the ruling class’s lies. And let’s stop lying to ourselves. America has changed. There used to be one standard, one set of laws, one set of rules. Now, there are two.

The one set of rules for normal people is designed to jam us up, to keep us down, to ensure that the power of the powerful never gets challenged.

And the one set of rules for the elite can be summed up like this: There are no rules.

The media howls about the rule of law. Democrat poohbahs cry about the rule of law. The Fredocon gimps whimper about the rule of law. But the “rule of law” they aspire to is merely their rule over you. To them, the rule of law is not some transcendent principle. Its purpose is not to ensure equality and fairness in our society. It’s a weapon designed to make sure nothing disrupts their scam.

Why do you think our elite is so eager to pass new laws and regulations? Is it because normal people like you and me are running wild in the streets? No, of course not. They don’t want to regulate political campaigns to make sure elections are fair. They want to regulate them so they will always win and we never will again. They don’t want a Green New Deal because they care about the weather in 2219, but because they want to take our power and our money for themselves. They don’t want to ban our guns because we’re dangerous to other Americans but because, armed and ready to defend our rights, we’re dangerous to their power.

Do you, even for a second, think any of the rules, regulations, statutes or laws they propose are even going to be applied to them? Do you see the DOJ ever indicting some liberal Dem or some pliable submissivecon for “campaign finance violations?” We know the answer to that because Hillary is wandering around the woods, with a goblet of screw-top Chardonnay glass in her withered paw, free as a bird.

Do you see them giving up their SUVs and trudging to work on foot or riding in some greasy, stinky bus? Will they give up their air travel? How about their beef? Tofu veggie burgers are for peasants. And their minions will always have guns even as you are rendered disarmed and defenseless.

Our elite is not elite. Instead, it’s a bunch of bums who somehow got a little money and took the reins of power and are now shaking-down our great nation for every penny they can wring out of it. We owe them nothing – not respect, not gratitude and certainly not obedience.

If you still wonder how we got Trump, just look around you. He’s a cry for help, a scream against the injustice we’re surrounded by. This injustice is poison to our country. This injustice is what makes republics fall apart, when the worthless ruling class pushes its contempt in the people’s collective face so hard and for so long that the population finally screams “The hell with this!”

It can’t continue. It won’t continue.

That’s the essential message of my novels People's Republic, Indian Country and Wildfire, about an America split apart into red and blue nations and going uphill and way, way downhill, respectively. Check ‘em out so that when the consequences of our failed elite’s venal, stupid decisions arrive, you won’t be surprised.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Obama White House knew of Clinton lies
« Reply #817 on: May 12, 2019, 04:58:43 PM »
Judicial Watch announced that it obtained 44 pages of records from the State Department through court-ordered discovery revealing that the Obama White House was tracking a December 2012 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking records concerning then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an unsecure, non-government email system. Months after the Obama White House involvement, the State Department responded to the requestor, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), falsely stating that no such records existed.

Judicial Watch’s discovery is centered upon whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system and whether the State Department acted in bad faith in processing Judicial Watch’s FOIA request for communications from Clinton’s office. U.S District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides, as well as E.W. Priestap, to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

“These documents suggest the Obama White House knew about the Clinton email lies being told to the public at least as early as December 2012,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “A federal court granted Judicial Watch discovery into the Clinton emails because the court wanted answers about a government cover-up of the Clinton emails. And now we have answers because it looks like the Obama White House orchestrated the Clinton email cover-up.”

More from our press release here: http://jwatch.us/oam3mf

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12689
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #818 on: May 12, 2019, 09:58:36 PM »
We knew this of course but never expected to be able to prove it.  This changes the game completely.  Trump's misdeeds were relevant because he is President ("and will be in jail when he is out") and Hillary's misdeeds were irrelevant because she lost and will never be President.  Now we have Trump's whole team innocent, but a President was guilty and we can see liberals ready to dart, weave, and backtrack on the idea of putting guilty ex Presidents in jail.

Lock him up.

It also kills the Joe Biden candidacy storyline.  Now he can deny his involvement in that administration.  He had no part in Fast and aFurious, no part in IRS targeting, no part in the Benghazi cover-up, no part in the email corruption, no part in Uranium One, no part in FISA abuse, no real part at all in any of it.

That's what we thought.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2019, 11:07:03 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10813
    • View Profile
anyone care to wager
« Reply #819 on: May 14, 2019, 08:04:30 PM »
on which way this judge will decide on whether Elijah Cummings can see years of Trump's financial records?

I give odds 9 to 1 he rules in favor of the LEFT with twisted explanations as to interpretation of precedent:

https://news.yahoo.com/judge-hear-suit-over-trump-financial-records-demand-042928691--politics.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #820 on: May 14, 2019, 11:55:40 PM »
Let's take this one over to the Lawfare thread.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10813
    • View Profile
McCArthy on McCabe
« Reply #823 on: August 30, 2019, 03:52:31 PM »
good article but he is too genteel in my opinion

an analogy is NOT 'a doctor with a great career who makes a mistake
should his/her career be judged by the mistake'

For McCabe the analogy should be  a doctor with a good career who at the end completely ignored ethics (and the law ) risking patients lives just for the money doing unnecessary procedures.  That in my opinion blots out previous successes

Mc Cabe with his cabal broked laws policy ethics because he did not like the guy running for president and did not enforce the law to protect a candidate he wanted to win.

For me  I could care less about the rest of his career.  This is bad news enough . and is exactly what he should be remembered for.
This was not a mistake or simple bad judgement .  This was a concerted premeditated series of crimes.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: Andrew McCarthy on McCabe
« Reply #824 on: August 30, 2019, 04:54:21 PM »


https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/andrew-mccabe-sues-justice-department-seeks-clemency/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202019-08-29&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart

The FBI should be considered on a level with other law enforcement entities such as the Policia Munincipal de Tijuana and the Chinese Ministry for State Security.

If you are ever contacted by the FBI, your only word to them should be "Lawyer".

If you ever serve on a jury, the credibility of the testimony given by anyone affiliated by the FBI should reflect the known level of integrity the agency has earned.

If you or I did anything that the various deep staters have done, we would be in federal custody. We live in a multi-tiered justice system. Plan accordingly.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
WSJ, Strassel: Sneaky, Leaky Comey
« Reply #825 on: August 30, 2019, 08:56:11 PM »


    Share
    Text
    1,266

    Opinion Potomac Watch

Sneaky, Leaky James Comey
The inspector general takes apart the former FBI director’s excuses for his actions.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Aug. 29, 2019 7:24 pm ET
You may also like
Up Next
0:00 / 1:27
Opinion: James Comey Mishandled Sensitive Government Information
Opinion: James Comey Mishandled Sensitive Government Information
On August 29, 2019, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice released a report exposing former FBI Director Comey and his handling of government documents. Image: Alex Kraus / Bloomberg

Of all the tall tales James Comey has told, none compare to the line he fed President Trump at their infamous January 2017 dinner. As recounted in the former Federal Bureau of Investigation director’s memo about that evening, “I said I don’t do sneaky things, I don’t leak, I don’t do weasel moves.”

The Justice Department’s inspector general begs to differ. In a new report about Mr. Comey’s handling of those memos, Michael Horowitz demonstrates that Mr. Comey in 2017 was consistently leaky and sneaky. The report refutes any claim that the then-director was justified in taking these actions. He repeatedly, and knowingly, broke the rules.
James Comey's FBI Rules
Subscribe

For more than two years, we’ve heard Mr. Comey’s characterization of his actions, popularized by an adoring media: He felt compelled to memorialize his private discussions with the president, to protect the FBI. He had no choice but to use an intermediary to leak memo contents, to save the nation by forcing the appointment of a special counsel. He was entitled to do so because the memos were his personal papers, and by that time he was a “private citizen.”

The inspector general calmly and coolly dismantles these claims. There’s good reason to suspect Mr. Trump was the focus of the bureau’s counterintelligence probe from the start, since that is the only way to explain the FBI’s outrageous decision to hide the probe from the president. The inspector general reports that Mr. Comey’s first briefing of the president-elect, on Jan. 6, 2017, was partly done in the hope that “Trump might make statements about, or provide information of value to,” that probe. That may be the real reason everyone on the FBI leadership team agreed “ahead of time that Comey should memorialize” what happened.

Mr. Horowitz’s report methodically skewers Mr. Comey’s claim that his memos were “personal” and therefore his to keep and use. It notes that he interacted with Mr. Trump only in his capacity as the FBI director, in official settings. He shared the memos with senior FBI leaders. Some memos touch on official investigations, while others contain classified information, which “is never considered personal property.” The report makes clear Mr. Comey knew his claim that the memos were personal was a sham. That characterization, Mr. Horowitz writes, is “wholly incompatible with the plain language of the statutes, regulations, and policies defining Federal records.”

Mr. Comey’s attempt to dig himself out of his disingenuous characterization heightens its absurdity. Asked by the inspector general how a memo describing an official dinner between the FBI director and the president could be considered a “personal” document, Mr. Comey explains that he was also present in his capacity as a “human being.”


Anyone in Mr. Comey’s position would know that the memos were FBI documents and that he had no right to keep them after Mr. Trump fired him. He nonetheless gave them to his attorneys, and scanned and emailed the sensitive information on unsecure equipment. (This is the man who called Hillary Clinton ’s handling of official secrets “extremely careless.”) The inspector general found it “particularly concerning” that Mr. Comey didn’t tell the FBI he’d retained copies, even when bureau officials came to his home to inventory and remove FBI property.

Mr. Horowitz is equally appalled the former director “made public sensitive investigative information” via a friend, giving it to the media “unilaterally and without authorization.” The report notes that “the civil liberties of every individual”—presumably even the president—depend on the FBI’s safeguarding information. Just as important, the inspector general lambastes Mr. Comey for the purpose of the leak—to achieve a “personally desired outcome,” the appointment of a special counsel. “By not safeguarding sensitive information,” and “by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees,” Mr. Horowitz writes.

This is the nub of it. Mr. Comey clearly detested Mr. Trump from the start. He abused his power and used leaky, sneaky tricks to undermine the presidency. Mr. Comey told the inspector general he had to do it because it was important to “the Nation,” and “I love this country.” Mr. Horowitz has no time for such self-justification: “Comey’s own, personal conception of what was necessary was not an appropriate basis for ignoring the policies and agreements governing the use of FBI records.” The report points out that if every FBI official acted on “personal convictions,” the bureau “would be unable to dispatch its law enforcement duties properly.”

This is the real merit of the inspector general’s report—its clear, ringing reminder that the rules apply to all. Still, it should disturb Americans that a man who has now been repeatedly admonished for “acting unilaterally”—and who so dishonestly spins his actions and history—held positions of such power for so long.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10813
    • View Profile
Levins' take on Horowitz report on one James Comes
« Reply #826 on: August 31, 2019, 11:26:30 AM »
I distinctly remember Mark saying he had (hopeful confidence in Comey's integrity and skills  to investigate  Hillary Clinton during her email period prior to the '16 election (that turned out to be fixed cover up) and I am sure he would / could  never have foreseen all this then:

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-wasnt-jim-comey-theyd-going-prison/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Judges order Antifa prosecution
« Reply #827 on: September 05, 2019, 11:17:09 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10813
    • View Profile
with regard to the opposite situation to above Doug's post
« Reply #829 on: September 09, 2019, 03:58:32 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
JW: New documents confirm Clinton email cover-up
« Reply #832 on: October 26, 2019, 12:45:50 PM »

New Benghazi Documents Confirm Clinton Email Cover-Up

Foggy Bottom, the nickname given to the State Department’s neighborhood in the District of Columbia, would seem an appropriate term for the fog its bureaucrats create and use to cover the email irregularities of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Here’s the latest. We released new Clinton emails on the Benghazi controversy that had been covered up for years and would have exposed Hillary Clinton’s email account if they had been released when the State Department first uncovered them in 2014.
The long withheld email, clearly responsive to our lawsuit seeking records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack,” contains Clinton’s private email address and a conversation about the YouTube video that sparked the Benghazi talking points scandal (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Our FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.
The Clinton email cover-up led to court-ordered discovery into three specific areas: whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to our request. The court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email.  (The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)

The September 2012 email chain begins with an email to Clinton at her private email address, “hdr22@clintonemail.com,” from Jacob Sullivan, Clinton’s then-senior advisor and deputy chief of staff. The email was copied to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s then-chief of staff, and then was forwarded to then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Communications and Clinton advisor Phillipe Reines:
From: Sullivan, Jacob J
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 11 :09 AM
To: 'hdr22@clintonemail.com' <hdr22@clintonemail.cont>
Cc: Mills, Cheryl D
Subject: Key points
 
HRC, Cheryl -
 
Below is my stab at tp’s for the Senator call. Cheryl, I've left the last point blank for you. These are rough but you get the point.
 
I look forward to sitting down and having a Hillary~to-John conversation about what we know. l know you were frustrated by the briefing we did and I'm sorry our hands were tied in that setting.

It's important we see each other in person, but over the phone today I just wanted to make a few points.

First, we have been taking this deadly seriously, as we should. I set up the ARB in record time, with serious people on it. l will get to the bottom of all the security questions. We are also in overdrive working to track down the killers, and not just through the FBI. We will get this right.

Second, the White House and Susan were not making things up. They were going with what they were told by the IC [Intelligence community].

The real story may have been obvious to you from the start (and indeed I called it an assault by heavily armed militants in my first statement), but the IC gave us very different information. They were unanimous about it.

Let me read you an email from the day before Susan went on the shows. It provides the talking points for HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and for her public appearance. It's from a very senior official at CIA, copying his counterparts at DNI [Director of National Intelligence], NCTC [National Counterterrorism Center], and FBI:

Here are the talking points ...

--The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

-This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

--The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths US citizens.

That is exactly what Susan said, following the guidance from the IC. She obviously got bad advice. But she was not shading the truth.

Third, you have to remember that the video WAS important. We had four embassies breached because of protests inspired by it. Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum, and Sanaa. We had serious security challenges in Pakistan and Chennai and some other places. All this was happening at the same time. So many of the contemporaneous comments about the video weren't referring in any way to Benghazi. Now of course even in those countries it was about much much more than the video, but the video was certainly a piece of it one we felt we had to speak to so that our allies in those countries would back us up.
(In fact, as we famously uncovered in 2014, the “talking points” that provided the basis for Susan Rice’s false statements were created by the Obama White House.)

We requested records related to the Benghazi talking points in May 2014. In July 2014, we filed suit. The Clinton email finally released this month was first identified by the State Department in September, 2014 but was withheld from us despite it specifically referencing talking points. After it was specifically described in an Office of the Inspector General report, the court ordered its production. It was only after we informed the State Department that we were prepared to file a motion with the court to compel production of the records that the Department relented and produced the 2012 email in question.
 
(In an August 22, 2019, hearing, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered production of the record in granting us significant new discovery in the case. Judge Lamberth said, “There is no FOIA exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence.” The judge also stated that the government has mishandled this case and the discovery of information including former Secretary Clinton’s emails so poorly that Judicial Watch may have the ability to prove they acted in “bad faith.”)
 
This email is a twofer – it shows Hillary Clinton misled the U.S. Senate on Benghazi and that the State Department wanted to hide the Benghazi connection to the Clinton email scheme. Rather than defending her email misconduct, the Justice Department has more than enough evidence to reopen its investigations into Hillary Clinton.

The court is considering whether to allow us to question Hillary Clinton and her top aide in person and under oath about the email and Benghazi controversies.

Last month, the State Department, under court order, finally provided us a previously hidden email, which shows top State Department officials used and were aware of Hillary Clinton’s email account.

Our discovery over the last several months found many more details about the scope of the Clinton email scandal and cover-up:
•   John Hackett, former Director of Information Programs and Services (IPS) testified under oath that he had raised concerns that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff may have “culled out 30,000” of the secretary’s “personal” emails without following strict National Archives standards. He also revealed that he believed there was interference with the formal FOIA review process related to the classification of Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails.
•   Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s White House liaison at the State Department, and later Clinton’s personal lawyer, admitted under oath that she was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in June 2016.
•   Justin Cooper, former aide to President Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee who registered the domain name of the unsecure clintonemail.com server that Clinton used while serving as Secretary of State, testified he worked with Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, to create the non-government email system.
•   In the interrogatory responses of E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, he stated that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President.
•   Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Clinton’s senior advisor and deputy chief of staff when she was secretary of state, testified that both he and Clinton used her unsecure non-government email system to conduct official State Department business.
•   Eric Boswell, former assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, testified that Clinton was warned twice against using unsecure BlackBerry’s and personal emails to transmit classified material.
The Deep State has a secure home at the State Department.




 


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: FISA court pist off at FBI
« Reply #838 on: December 17, 2019, 07:10:35 PM »
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/secret-fisa-court-issues-highly-unusual-rebuke-fbi-mistakes-n1103451

"Secret FISA court issues highly unusual public rebuke of FBI for mistakes"

"Mistakes". That's a funny way to spell "felony crimes".

« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 05:46:21 AM by G M »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #839 on: December 18, 2019, 03:31:40 AM »
WSJ

Our media friends want to ignore the FBI’s abuse of power in seeking secret warrants to spy on Carter Page, but the country deserves a thorough accounting and clean up. One step in the right direction arrived Tuesday when a clearly outraged head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court told the government to shape up and fast.

In a blistering order that she made public, presiding FISC Judge Rosemary Collyer responded to last week’s Inspector General report on the FBI’s dishonest applications. She notes that the FBI appears before her court without a competing pleader, and that the government thus “has a heightened duty of candor to the [FISC] in ex parte proceedings.”

Impeachment Eve/Jim Comey Spins


SUBSCRIBE
She adds that the IG report found “troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information” to the court “which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession.” FBI officials also hid information from the court that was detrimental to their claim of probable cause that Mr. Page was an “agent of a foreign power.”

Judge Collyer’s order demands that the government, no later than Jan. 10, inform the court “in a sworn written submission” what it has done and plans to do to make sure future FISA warrant applications aren’t tainted. This is useful and is the first public evidence we’ve had that the FISA judges believe they were deceived.

Yet it also underscores how the FISA process dilutes political accountability. The FBI has tried to say its applications were kosher because a court approved them, while the court now fingers the FBI for deception. But so far no individuals have been held accountable, and the abuses would never have been discovered without the digging of former House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes.

Congress created FISA in the late 1970s to protect against previous FBI wiretap abuses. Clearly it hasn’t worked, and more bureaucratic hurdles won’t stop FBI officials who lie or alter email evidence. Injecting judges into secret executive-branch national security decisions was always a mistake, and now we know it abets abuse more than prevents it.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
History of Operation Fast & Furious
« Reply #841 on: December 21, 2019, 11:53:48 AM »
Not familiar with this site, but certainly we need a summary of OF&F:

https://ammo.com/articles/operation-fast-and-furious-atf-gunwalking-scandal-forgotten-history



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
For Whom the New Rules?
« Reply #843 on: December 21, 2019, 09:20:13 PM »
https://amgreatness.com/2019/12/18/for-whom-the-new-rules/

For Whom the New Rules?
So egregious have been the ruling class’s attacks on Donald Trump, so shameless has been the sanctimony with which men such as William Webster have defended their biased governing rules, that the rest of us are well nigh compelled to give it a double dose of its own medicine.

 Angelo Codevilla - December 18th, 2019
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
When Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s December 9 report did not challenge the claim by the FBI (and the CIA) that its surveillance and investigation of all things Trump were properly “premised”; when it failed to address the illegality of officials’ trafficking to the media information from said surveillance; when it downgraded the FBI’s misdeeds to “performance failures,” that report offered the deep state the opportunity to claim that its interference in American politics is a good thing.

William Webster, the only person ever to have headed both FBI and CIA, seized that opportunity with an op-ed in the New York Times, in which he claims both agencies acted to protect “the rule of law,” and that they should continue to do so. That claim abstracts from the undeniable—and undenied—clash between the FBI and CIA’s anti-Trump campaign and current law.

Nevertheless, given the power of precedent, as well as the unpunished permanence of the officials who established the precedent, yes: America’s national security apparatchiks  effectively have changed the meaning of current law. They have established the propriety—maybe even the necessity—of adulterating or manufacturing allegations as premises for investigations the purpose of which is to hurt candidates or officials of whom they disapprove.

None would suggest, however, that Webster or any of our reigning security-crats intend what amount to new rules will be applicable generally; i.e. that they mean to grant to others the presumption of  immunity from “second-guess[ing] discretionary judgments;” nor the right to surveil and investigate political enemies and then, laws on classified information notwithstanding, to spread results and innuendo so as to defeat or drive them from office.

In short, Webster’s “rule of law” amounts to the assertion that he and people like himself are the law. Hence, to criticize them is to criticize the rule of law.

And yet, regardless of what anyone might wish, the Left’s cynical use of the Steele dossier as a pretend-predicate for its activities has freed one and all to ignore the heretofore sacrosanct Fourth Amendment restriction that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . .” Unless that restriction is reinstated by prosecuting and punishing the liberals and leftists who trashed it, the Right, too, will use the powers of intelligence, turbo-charged by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to its own advantage.

That is because unilateral adherence to law is untenably stupid.

There is no reason why President Trump, or any successor, should not appoint to FBI, CIA, or any of the nation’s sundry intelligence and law enforcement agencies, people who will make whatever “discretionary judgments” they need to come up with “predicates” for covering major opposition candidates with webs of surveillance and research into their every act and utterance; and who then will gin up campaigns of vilification that vie for virulence with the ones that Trump has suffered since 2016.

The Left wrote the playbook on using intelligence to launch attacks and on claims of national security to shield the attackers from scrutiny. Anyone may speak the playbook’s words. One may hope only that the Right’s self-justifications might be less oily and foul than Webster’s.

Moreover, the Right’s investigations might actually aim at facts. That would be novel because, never forget, the “investigations” into Trump were not about unearthing facts, so much as to to validate and spread negative opinions under the color of authority.

The 2020 field of Democratic presidential candidates offers plentiful opportunities for the Right to inflict the new rules’ consequences upon their authors.

Consider: To what extent do South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s father’s extensive Communist contacts continue to influence his son? Mayor Pete grew up among ideas and persons hostile to America. These need to be identified, and questions need to be examined about whether and to what extent any continue to influence this presidential candidate.

Mayor Pete also has a history of illegal drug use. Who have his suppliers been? Tied to which cartels? What sort of leverage might they have on him? People need to be identified and examined under oath. Discrepancies in testimony need to be prosecuted. So do whatever crimes they may have committed. The anti-Trump investigations turned related persons’ “process crimes” into indictments of Trump. Democratic candidates should experience no less.

On their face, the Biden family’s financial profiting from the several offices Joe Biden has held involves the violation of numerous ordinary laws. Detailing the manner and extent to which the family’s enrichment have paralleled its access to power seems to be part of federal law enforcement’s core duties.

But arguably the foremost rule by which the ruling class has lived is avoidance of any and all matters that might inconvenience its members’ powers, prestige, and money.

So egregious have been the ruling class’s attacks on Donald Trump, so shameless has been the sanctimony with which men such as William Webster have defended their biased governing rules, that the rest of us are well nigh compelled to give it a double dose of its own medicine.

Angelo Codevilla
Angelo M. Codevilla is a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make...

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Rogers of NSA working with Durham?
« Reply #844 on: December 23, 2019, 05:57:23 AM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: FISA Court: Are you fg kidding me?
« Reply #847 on: January 11, 2020, 07:08:42 PM »
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/we-now-know-the-kris-cross.php

Why it's almost like there is some sort of lawless deep state that has taken over the federal government...

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: FISA Court: Are you fg kidding me? 2.0
« Reply #849 on: January 13, 2020, 04:25:42 PM »
A better and deeper article:

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/13/fisa-court-selects-lawyer-who-vehemently-denied-fbi-misled-fisa-to-oversee-fbi-reforms/

This is pretty much the Deep State flipping us the bird and saying "What are you going to do about it?".