Category Archives: Digital Security

Obama Spied on Everybody Since April 2009 | Apr 25, 2017

The big, amazing list of people Obama spied on | Sharyl Attkisson

|| WND

 

“The Obama administration isn’t accused of gathering intelligence information to spy for political, and other, purposes just once. Or twice. Or even just three times.

A remarkable timeline assembled by ace investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson shows just how often the Obama administration apparently spied on friend and foe alike.

With all of this information gathered in one place, WND then compiled a list gleaned from Attkisson’s timeline of all those whom the Obama administration is suspected of targeting either by spying, or investigating and/or prosecuting using intelligence information.

And the list is impressive.

  • Former U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.
  • Pro-Israel lobbyists
  • FBI contractor and whistleblower Shamai Leibowitz
  • Tea-party groups
  • WikiLeaks
  • New York Times reporter James Risen
  • NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake
  • Fox News reporter James Rosen
  • CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson
  • Former U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio
  • Fox News reporter Mike Levine
  • ATF Special Agent John Dodson
  • Former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus
  • Associated Press reporters
  • Benghazi whistleblowers
  • President Obama’s vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright
  • Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning
  • CIA officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou
  • NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden
  • Reporter Audrey Hudson
  • FBI agent and contractor Donald Sachtleben
  • Former state department contractor Stephen Jin-Woo Kim
  • The Senate Intelligence Committee
  • Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
  • Former CIA employee Jeffrey Alexander Sterling
  • Unspecified members of Congress
  • American-Jewish groups
  • Trump adviser Carter Page
  • Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
  • Candidate Donald Trump’s campaign
  • President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team

WND asked Attkisson: Given the sheer number of areas in which it engaged in spying, did it not seem clear that the Obama administration had weaponized the intelligence community?

“I think the facts of the timeline speak for themselves, and people are free to draw their own inferences,” she replied.

But, WND asked, would you not say that what the timeline clearly seems to imply is that spying was a tactic of the Obama administration in numerous areas?

“I think there’s little question that the intel community under the Obama administration utilized its tools tradecraft more aggressively and in a broader scope than had been done previously.”

Attkisson added, “As has been widely reported, it went after more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined, it targeted reporters in ways that had never been done before, and it vastly expanded permission for itself to spy on members of Congress and ordinary U.S. citizens.”

But she saw more to the picture.

“I will point out that I think some of this is less a product of a specific administration and more an outgrowth of the dynamic of government pushing the limits of authorities granted after 9/11.

“Some of the intel officials and bureaucrats calling the shots persisted from administration to administration, Republican and Democrat alike,” Attkisson observed.”

….Continue reading more @ WND

 

Schock Tactics: How The Justice Department Violated The Constitution In Its Aaron Schock Investigation

|| JonathanTurley.org

“Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the investigation of former Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill), who attracted notoriety for his use of a Downton Abbey motif for the decoration of his office.  Obviously a preference for haughty interiors should not be enough to generate a massive criminal investigation.  However, the prosecutor in this case has pursued Schock with utter abandon, including trampling over long-established protections accorded to Congress.  Regardless of the merits of the fraud allegations against Schock, the investigation raises troubling questions of constitutional law and Congress should hold hearings into the violation of Article I.

At the start of his famous poem Mending Wall, Robert Frost wrote, “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.” When it comes to the Justice Department, that statement is particularly true this month. In the prosecution of former congressman Aaron Schock (R-Ill.), the Justice Department did not simply ignore the wall of separation between the legislative and executive branches, it bulldozed it.

In its invitation of possible fraud by Schock, the FBI enlisted a staff member to record conversations in the office, rummage through files and paperwork, and remove documents for investigators and prosecutors to search of any wrongdoing. It is an egregious violation of the protections afforded members of Congress and, if left unaddressed, would constitute extremely dangerous precedent for our constitutional system.”

….Continue reading more @ JonathanTurley.org

Is Using a Fake Social Security Number to Get a Job a Crime? | Apr 22, 2017

Tucker Carlson Destroys Cocky ‘Dreamer’ After She Brags About Using a Fake Social Security Number

|| TheGatewayPundit

“Julissa Arce is a ‘Dreamer’ who was born in Mexico and grew up in the U.S. after her parents brought her here illegally.

She appeared as a guest on Tucker Carlson’s show tonight bragging about using a fake Social Security number to get a job at Goldman Sachs. Julissa Arce said that Dreamers who use fake Social Security numbers are ‘what young people who are incredibly driven are forced to do’. Arce is now a legal citizen.

So driven people are now forced to break the law? That makes you driven? No, that makes you a CRIMINAL.

Here is one of the clips where Tucker Carlson forces her to say just how many immigrants the U.S. should take.

Tucker Carlson: “How many immigrants should we bring in a year? That’s a real question.”

Julissa Arce: “That cap of 85,000 visas should at least be doubled to meet the demands of our country…”

We need to bring in more immigrants when Americans are suffering from years of chronic unemployment? No! We need to put Americans back to work and get tough on illegal aliens! Illegal aliens are criminal invaders and must be deported.”

….Continue reading more @ TGP

 

From the TGP Comments section:

Cocky ‘Dreamer’ Brags About Using Fake Social Security Number

Examples of often violated laws by illegal aliens but under-enforced :

•False Personation of a U.S. Citizen (18 U.S.C. § 911). Illegal aliens often present themselves as U.S. citizens, an act punishable by up to five years in jail, a felony. This law is often cited in immigration prosecutions and may involve, for example, an alien claiming U.S. citizenship to his employer.

•Fraud and False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001). It is common for illegal aliens to make false statements to the government or on official documents. An illegal alien violates this law when claiming to be a U.S. citizen on an I-9 Employment Eligibility form and faces a fine and up to five years imprisonment.

•Social Security Fraud (42 U.S.C. § 408). This statute has been invoked where an illegal alien provided a false Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a job, where an illegal alien used a fraudulent Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a driver’s license, and when an illegal alien used a Social Security card belonging to a citizen in order to obtain Section 8 housing, for example.

Violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years. The court can also require violators to provide restitution to the victims.

etc etc….”

 

California Senate Leader: Trump Immigration Crackdown ‘Based on Principles of White Supremacy’

|| Breitbart

“California senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) has claimed that the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown is based on the “principles of white supremacy,” after the federal government threatened to withhold $20 million in criminal justice grants from the state of California.

“It has become abundantly clear that Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration are basing their law enforcement policies on principles of white supremacy — not American values,” de León said in a statement. “Their constant and systematic targeting of diverse cities and states goes beyond constitutional norms and will be challenged at every level.”

Sen. de León’s comments come after the Department of Justice warned the state of California that it could lose $20 million in criminal justice grants should it fail to enforce policies under the new administration’s immigration crackdown.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has repeatedly warned localities protecting illegals from deportation, known as “sanctuary cities,” that they risk losing federal funding should they fail to comply with federal immigration law. The administration is also publishing a weekly list of crimes committed by illegal aliens residing in sanctuary cities.

On a visit to the southern border on Friday, Sessions described de León’s claim as “kind of extremist statement that I totally reject,” urging jurisdictions such as California and New York to “reconsider” their position.

Meanwhile, Californian Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Yuba) ridiculed it as a “ridiculous statement.”

“Nobody here is talking about the state becoming an immigration agency or doing ICE’s job for them. It’s about whether you comply with federal law,” Gallagher told The LA Times.

In February this year, de León revealed that “half [his] family are here illegally” under false documents and would be eligible for deportation under government policy. He then went on to push legislation making California a “Sanctuary State,” which prohibits state law enforcement agencies in California from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

California State Senate Leader: ‘Half My Family’ Here Illegally

|| Breitbart  | Feb 2017

“Everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work.” – California Senate leader admits most illegal aliens in California commit identity fraud to survive illegally. 

“California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon (D-Los Angeles) said last Tuesday that “half his family” was in the country illegally, using false documents, and eligible for deportation under President Trump’s new executive order against “sanctuary” jurisdictions.

De Léon, who introduced the bill, made his remarks at a hearing in Sacramento on SB54, the bill to make California a “Sanctuary State.”

He said:

… I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.

Testifying before the Senate Public Safety Committee, De Léon defended the widespread practice by illegal aliens of using fraudulent documents to work and obtain taxpayer-paid benefits, dismissing any concerns California citizens may have about being the target of identity theft.

In an interview the following day on KPCC 89.3’s Air Talk with Larry Mantle, De Léon expressed outrage that President Trump’s executive order would include those who possess fraudulent documents or committed identity theft to obtain a Social Security number.

“Someone simply who received or purchased a [fraudulent] Social Security card down at McArthur Park, or elsewhere in my district would be eligible immediately for mass deportation,” De Léon said (at 11:45 in the link above).

“He’s trying to deputize police officers — and with the suspicion of someone being a criminal or having a broken taillight, that they themselves, as a local police officer, could call the ICE agents immediately and have that person deported without even legal due process.”

Host Larry Mantle asked him: “… First of all, I just — I want to make sure I understand correctly: You don’t think purchasing a phony Social Security card and number should be a deportable offense?”

De Léon replied: “I don’t think so … the vast majority of immigrants — hard working immigrants — have done that.  I can tell you I have family members specifically who came here as undocumented immigrants, and they did the same thing. That’s what you need to do to survive in this economy.”

Mantle objected: “But of course the problem is, — and I know people too — who’ve had their Social Security numbers and identities stolen as a result of that….”

De Léon minimized the problem, saying it was not the same as “Russian” hacking.

Breitbart News’ calls to the President Pro Tem’s office were unreturned.”

…..Continue reading more @ Breitbart

This legislative leader is saying that in order to survive in California, you must become a criminal, and therefore we must decriminalize our laws in order to make it easier for criminals to stay. What strange and twisted logic a for ‘lawmaker’ to make, to justify more illegal immigration. /CJ

Employees in Belgium Getting Voluntary Chip Implants for ‘Convenience’ | Apr 05, 2017

Cyborgs at work: employees getting implanted with microchips

| Seattle Times

The technology in itself is not new. It’s just never been used to tag employees on a broad scale before.

STOCKHOLM (AP) — The syringe slides in between the thumb and index finger. Then, with a click, a microchip is injected in the employee’s hand. Another “cyborg” is created.

What could pass for a dystopian vision of the workplace is almost routine at the Swedish startup hub Epicenter. The company offers to implant its workers and startup members with microchips the size of grains of rice that function as swipe cards: to open doors, operate printers, or buy smoothies with a wave of the hand.

The technology in itself is not new. Such chips are used as virtual collar plates for pets. Companies use them to track deliveries. It’s just never been used to tag employees on a broad scale before. Epicenter and a handful of other companies are the first to make chip implants broadly available.

And as with most new technologies, it raises security and privacy issues. While biologically safe, the data generated by the chips can show how often an employee comes to work or what they buy. Unlike company swipe cards or smartphones, which can generate the same data, a person cannot easily separate themselves from the chip.

“Of course, putting things into your body is quite a big step to do and it was even for me at first,” said Mesterton, remembering how he initially had had doubts.

“But then on the other hand, I mean, people have been implanting things into their body, like pacemakers and stuff to control your heart,” he said. “That’s a way, way more serious thing than having a small chip that can actually communicate with devices.”

Epicenter, which is home to more than 100 companies and some 2,000 workers, began implanting workers in January 2015. Now, about 150 workers have them. A company based in Belgium also offers its employees such implants, and there are isolated cases around the world where tech enthusiasts have tried this out in recent years.

The small implants use Near Field Communication (NFC) technology, the same as in contactless credit cards or mobile payments. When activated by a reader a few centimeters (inches) away, a small amount of data flows between the two devices via electromagnetic waves. The implants are “passive,” meaning they contain information that other devices can read, but cannot read information themselves.

Ben Libberton, a microbiologist at Stockholm’s Karolinska Institute, says hackers could conceivably gain huge swathes of information from embedded microchips. The ethical dilemmas will become bigger the more sophisticated the microchips become.

“The data that you could possibly get from a chip that is embedded in your body is a lot different from the data that you can get from a smartphone,” he says. “Conceptually you could get data about your health, you could get data about your whereabouts, how often you’re working, how long you’re working, if you’re taking toilet breaks and things like that.”

Libberton said that if such data is collected, the big question remains of what happens to it, who uses it, and for what purpose.

So far, Epicenter’s group of cyborgs doesn’t seem too concerned.

“People ask me; ‘Are you chipped?’ and I say; ‘Yes, why not,’” said Fredric Kaijser, 47, the chief experience officer at Epicenter. “And they all get excited about privacy issues and what that means and so forth. And for me it’s just a matter of I like to try new things and just see it as more of an enabler and what that would bring into the future.”

….Continue reading more @ Seattletimes.com

 

Sheryl Atkisson On Getting Spied and more on Hannity

 

…..More on Sheryl Atkisson @ Sheryl Atkisson Web Site

‘Many of you have asked for the status of my computer intrusion lawsuit against the federal government. On March 19, 2017, a federal judge denied the government’s motion to dismiss my computer intrusion lawsuit, and transferred the case from Washington D.C. to the Eastern District of Virginia. Below are excerpts from the judge’s opinion, which […]”

More @ Attkisson v. Eric Holder, Department of Justice, et al

Why Is Obama Hiding from his Govt Spying Scandal? | Apr 02, 2017

Why the Deafening Silence From Obama Since Obamagate Blew Wide Open?

| theGatewayPundit

“Barack Hussein Obama has been dead silent since the Trump wiretapping scandal has blown wide open.

His entire administration, including himself are being accused of one of the biggest scandals in modern U.S. history, or perhaps the biggest scandal ever, yet not a peep from the arrogant guy who loves to ‘pop off’. How come?

The only ‘response’ we have received from Obama’s camp is from his spokesman. In a carefully worded, lawyer-esque response, Obama’s spokesman said:

“A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice,”

As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

As usual, Obama’s camp is splitting hairs and obfuscating. This will only last so long because every day that passes, we are learning more and more about the surveillance of Trump and his team by the Obama administration. According to one report by Fox News, the surveillance began before Trump was even the GOP nominee.

We have also just learned that Nunes knows who did the unmasking of Trump and his private associates. This person is very well know and high up in the Intelligence community. The walls are closing in, Hussein Obama so you’ll have to start talking at one point.”

….Continue reading more @ theGatewayPundit

 

Here’s Why Nunes’ Obama Spying Revelations Are Such A Big Deal

| the Federalist

In the last three months of the Obama presidency, significant personal information from and about the Trump transition was collected and widely disseminated at intelligence agencies, according to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes.

Dozens of intelligence reports provided to Nunes by an unnamed whistleblower were floating around during the sensitive transition period following the election, he said. The information collection itself may have technically been legal, but the failure to properly mask the information “alarmed” the California congressman, who notified the White House of the surveillance and dissemination of information on Wednesday afternoon.

Many of the reporters present didn’t seem to grasp the significance of what Nunes revealed. You can — and should — watch that press conference here.

Nunes began his remarks by reiterating his Monday request that anyone with information on surveillance of Trump or his team come forward. “I also said while there was not a physical wiretap of Trump Tower, I was concerned that other surveillance activities were used against President Trump and his associates.” While Nunes’ earlier refutation of Trump’s wiretap claim received outsize attention by the media, his concern about other surveillance did not.

He then dropped the bombshell: “First, I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition. Second, details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value, were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting. Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked. Fourth and finally, I want to be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia or the investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team.” Again:

1) Information was collected on the Trump team by Obama administration agencies.
2) This information had no reason to be shared in intelligence reports to Obama officials.
3) Obama officials may have flouted legally required attempts to minimize and mask personal identifying information.
4) This had nothing to do with Russia.

He later explained that these reports were related to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act-permitted information collections. Such collections of information on foreign sources require hiding and protecting information about U.S. citizens incidentally picked up during the process when disseminating reports on information gleaned. He even referenced how this reminded him of the trouble the spy agencies got in when failing to mask members of Congress they routinely picked up while spying on Israel. So his concern is not just that the personal identifying information was not masked, but that there appeared to be little or no foreign intelligence value in the spreading of information regarding the political opponents of the previous administration.

Nunes said he wants to know who was aware of this behavior, why it was not disclosed to Congress, who requested and authorized the additional unmasking, whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates, and whether any laws and regulations or procedures were violated.”

…..Continue reading more @ theFederalist

Worse than Watergate: Obama’s Wiretaps Crossed Every Line | Mar 05, 2017

The Obama Spying Smoking Gun on MSNBC Mika & Farkas | Mar 29, 2017

 

The Obama Spying Smoking Gun on MSNBC Mika & Farkas | Mar 29, 2017

Obama’s Former Asst. Defense Secretary ADMITS ON MSNBC Obama Admin Spied on Trump

| theGatewayPundit

Former Assistant Defense Secretary under the Obama administration, Evelyn Farkas admitted that the Obama administration was trying to collect as much intelligence as possible on the Trump administration.

Evelyn Farkas also served as an advisor to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Presidential campaign and was up for a position in the Clinton administration if Hillary became President.

“Evelyn Farkas: “…Frankly speaking the people on The Hill..get as much information as you can. Get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy…

Ummm that the Trump folks if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians that they would try to compromise the sources and methods meaning that we would no longer have access to that intelligence.”

It’s no big deal that she had access to information on the Trump campaign while advising his opponent, Hillary Clinton, right? Nothing to see here, move along…

There is a massive amount of evidence piling up that the Trump camp was spied on by the Obama administration, but Russia, right? The fake Russian narrative is to distract from Obamagate.”

….Continue reading more @ TGP

 

 

Obama Intel Changes Could Have Allowed NSA Intercepts Of Americans To Fall Victim To ‘Political Espionage’

| TownHall

“Was Donald Trump wiretapped? Was the transition team under surveillance? There are more questions than answers, especially with the latter question, but one thing is clear: our intelligence community caught the Trump transition team through incidental collection. John Solomon and Sara Carter of Circa News reported that those logs are expected to be turned over to Congress next week, as they investigate possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet, they didn’t get into the weeds concerning the allegations that have yet to unveil any solid evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign. Carter and Solomon decided to look into the regulations regarding NSA surveillance, which were changed under Obama that allowed unmasking of American caught through incidental collection to possibly become victim to political games.

Solomon and Carter also added that 16 other executive agencies, not just the FBI and CIA, can now ask for unmasked information after the Obama tweaks to NSA minimization protocols, the process in which the NSA conceals the identity of a citizen who was not subject to the FISA warrant. It’s done either through redaction or naming them generically, like American No. 1. Yet, given the rise in lone wolf attacks, those procedures aimed at protecting privacy were reduced:

The intelligence community fought hard over the last decade starting under George W. Bush and continuing under Obama to gain greater access to NSA intercepts of Americans overseas, citing the growing challenges of stopping lone wolf terrorists, state-sponsored hackers, and foreign threats. But those directly familiar with the processes acknowledged the breadth of access today could be abused for political espionage or pure prurient interests, instead of just compelling national security interests.

[…]

The ACLU, an ally of Obama on many issues, issued a statement a few months ago warning that the president’s loosened procedures governing who could request or see unmasked American intercepts by the NSA were “grossly inadequate” and lacked “appropriate safeguards.”

Nunes, the House intelligence panel chairman who was not interviewed for this story, alleged in the last week he has received evidence that Obama administration political figures gained access to unmasked American identities through foreign intercepts involving the Trump transition team between November and January.

[…]

…as the U.S. intelligence community became more worried over the last decade about its ability to locate lone wolf terrorists, foreign spies and hackers in an increasingly digital world, Bush and Obama began relaxing the rules for minimization and increasing access to NSA collected information on Americans. In short, the Obama administration created a standard set of “exceptions” to the minimization rules.

One of those relaxations came in 2011 when Attorney General Eric Holder sent a memo to the FISA court laying out the rules for sharing unmasked intercepts of Americans captured incidentally by the NSA. The court approved the approach.

In 2015, those rules were adapted to determine not only how the FBI got access to unmasked intelligence from NSA or FISA intercepts but also other agencies. One of the requirements, the NSA and FBI had to keep good records of who requested and gained access to the unredacted information.

And in his final days in office, Obama created the largest ever expansion of access to non-minimized NSA intercepts, creating a path for all U.S. intelligence to gain access to unmasked reports by changes encoded in a Reagan-era Executive Order 12333.

The government officials who could request or approve an exception to unmask a U.S. citizen’s identity has grown substantially. The NSA now has 20 executives who can approve the unmasking of American information inside intercepts, and the FBI has similar numbers.

This isn’t new concerning the game of government exploiting new technological features to maximize its power and take advantage of it before the courts can catch up.”

….Continue reading more @ Townhall.com

Dems on Flawed End of Obama Wire tapping Scandal | Mar 24, 2017

Dems Claim Trump Team Not Wiretapped While Wiretapped

| PJ Media

“On January 20, the New York Times published a story on wiretapping of Trump insiders. In the print version, the headline was “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides,” although you’re going to have to squint to read the acknowledgment of the print headline at the bottom of the page.

Still, if you look through the actual article, you’ll find this paragraph:

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

On March 4, Trump tweeted:

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism.

This, of course, has been the subject of lots of Claude Rains since then, as reporters and politicians announce they’re shocked, shocked at that accusation.

I’ve written about this before here and here, and I won’t go through the whole argument again as I’m not paid by the word, but the really inescapable conclusion was that either the New York Times reporting was false, or Trump was justified. The real question was identifying who in the Obama administration (or in the upper-level civil service staff) had been responsible for leaking information that identified a “US Person” — and would they be prosecuted for what appear to be felonious violations of 18USC793 and 50USC1801.

This strikes me as silly and disingenuous: it’s the same old “well, it wasn’t really a wiretap and it wasn’t really a wiretap of Trump” defense.

Now, after a lot of talk during hearings on Monday that no one saw evidence that Trump had been wiretapped, today Devin Nunes announced (quoting from his press release):

As a commenter at Instapundit pointed out, this is starting to look like the old Washington tradition, the “modified limited hangout.”

The Creepy, Long-Standing Practice of Undersea Cable Tapping @ theAtlantic.com

 

So, this is getting even more interesting now. It appears now that a number of Trump insiders were intercepted, and no, I’m not buying the argument that Trump saying “wiretapped” was wrong, especially since that’s exactly what was reported.

And it appears now that people trying to maintain that Trump was “lying” about being wiretapped are being driven to the interesting defense that it was a lie because the U.S. wasn’t actually wiretapping Trump people when the U.S. was wiretapping Trump people.

Which is, at least, good for a laugh.

In the meantime, though, I think Colonel Mustard should lawyer up: the bobbies are closing in.”

…Continue reading @ PJ Media

  – Some of the most interesting reads on the internet are the comment sections of the sites, sometimes they are the most interesting part of the site.

We’ll make a concerted effort to include more content from comments sections to contibute to the dialogue. /CJ

| From the comments @ PJ Media

News on this topic is being updated as I write but here’s how I see it.

There were illegally obtained intercepts of Trump communications (call them wiretaps, or intercepts, or whatever). They show Trump did nothing wrong but they can be used to continue to push the narrative ‘Trump was involved with the Russians to hack the election’ and keep the Trump administration mired in a haze of innuendos and suspicion thereby damaging his administration.

But they have a problem.

They can’t reveal their information because people will ask the obvious questions, ‘Who gave you this information? Who obtained it? How was it obtained?’

The Democrats and enemies of Trump are in a bind.

If they release what they have they will have to explain who gave them the intel and give a detailed account of how it was obtained.

That’s why you have Come[d]y saying, ‘we have information but I can’t tell you what it is’.

If they release the intel their game is up because they will have to reveal the sources and methods.

But having already admitted they have the intel but they aren’t going to release it because the investigation is ongoing only makes things worse for
them.

Democrats are screaming to release the evidence and wondering why Comey isn’t releasing the intel that will take Trump down.

Which leads to this:

If they release what they have the ‘Deep State’ (Obama White House staff) players will be exposed.

It’s like witnessing a crime while you’re committing a crime.

…More @ PJ Media

Obama Trump Spying Scandal | Why Obama Must Testify | Mar 22, 2017

Mr. Comey Goes to Congress to Get Grilled by Gowdy | Mar 21, 2017

Bezos’ CIA Washington Post Connection Exposed by Trump Leak | Mar 02, 2017

 

 

Comey on Thin Ice: Can the president fire James Comey? | Mar 21, 2017

Next Words Director Comey May Hear From President Trump? ‘You’re Fired!’

| LawNewz

“If there’s one thing we know about President Donald Trump, it’s that he’s not afraid to yell, “you’re fired!” anytime he hears something he dislikes. 45 must be practicing his termination declarations Monday, after a day of James Comey’s testimony before Congress. Comey, the Obama-appointed FBI director testified today before the House Intelligence Committee, and that testimony boiled down to this: Obama’s wiretapping is “fake news,” and the Trump-Russia connection isn’t (or at the very least they are investigating).

If you’re thinking that it’s a little weird for the FBI to be commenting on an open investigation, you’re right. The FBI is generally pretty tight-lipped about its work. But bizarre times call for bizarre measures, and Comey explained that in “unusual circumstances where it is in the public interest,” he would share what information he could about what’s been going on with our president.

Comey began his hours of testimony with this confirmation that Trump’s campaign is being investigated, and that investigation is a criminal one:

While Donald Trump is known for his pervasive inconsistency, he is consistent about one thing: getting rid of those who threaten his authority. He has been known to fire (or, if we’re talking Hillary Clinton, threaten to “lock up”) any worthy opponent. Just last week, news broke that Trump had fired U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara and dozens of other U.S. Attorneys. Although turnover of federally-appointed prosecutors is typical, Bharara’s firing was not. For starters, it opposed a public announcement last November that Bharara had been officially asked to stay on into the Trump administration. Stranger still was the timing. Right at the time he was fired, Bharara had reportedly been conducting an investigation into Tom Price, Trump’s new Health and Human Services Secretary, over some shady stock transactions.

By contrast, Comey’s calling Trump out for lying about President Obama, while simultaneously confirming that the FBI is amidst an investigation over collusion with Russia is a one-two punch that leaves the Price investigation in the dust. Trump, a compulsively reactive person when publicly embarrassed, is likely doing far more than licking his wounds right now. But could Trump really fire James Comey?

He sure can. Under federal law, the F.B.I. director is appointed to one 10-year term – a term length purposely created such that it overlaps presidential administrations. Presidents may fire the FBI director (and Congress can impeach one) – and according to a 2014 report by the Congressional Research Service, “there are no statutory conditions on the President’s authority to remove the FBI Director.” While some FBI directors have resigned prior to the end of their terms, only one – William S. Sessions (appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987) – was ever fired. Sessions was fired by President Bill Clinton in the wake of allegations of ethics violations, such as misuse of public funds for his private benefit.

It was impossible to listen to Comey’s testimony Monday without anticipating Trump’s cutting short his tenure as Director. And yet, such a reality was all but unthinkable just a few short months ago. James Comey’s unprecedented public statement made the week prior to the 2016 presidential election was largely considered the thing that sealed President Trump’s win. Just a few days before Election Day, Comey announced that the Hillary Clinton was being reopened. Although little came of the announcement relative to that investigation, the bell could not be un-rung, and Hillary Clinton was pronounced for evermore, “extremely careless” with the handling of classified information. Candidate Trump could not have asked for a better gift; many, though, like Senator Harry Reid, and ethics specialist Richard Painter, criticized Comey for having acted improperly and perhaps even illegally.”

….Continue reading more @ LawNewz

 

Recent History:

 

Defiant FBI Chief Is Fired by President Clinton: Law enforcement – Alleged ethical abuses by Sessions are cited as reason for dismissal. He refused to resign.

| LA Times – 1993

“WASHINGTON — FBI Director William S. Sessions, who stubbornly refused to resign despite Justice Department ethics findings that he abused his office, was fired Monday by President Clinton–the first time a director of the storied agency has been dismissed.

Clinton and Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, steeling the Administration against claims that the decision was politically motivated, used unmistakably blunt language to describe Sessions’ failings. Reno “has reported to me in no uncertain terms that he can no longer effectively lead the bureau and law enforcement community,” Clinton said, adding that he fully agreed with her recommendation to replace Sessions immediately.

Clinton is expected to announce today that he plans to nominate U.S. District Court Judge Louis J. Freeh of New York, a former FBI agent and federal prosecutor, to succeed Sessions. Clinton met with Freeh for 90 minutes Friday night.

“With a change in management in the FBI, we can now give the crime fighters the leadership they deserve,” Clinton said. Administration officials said Monday that they know of no other candidate under consideration for the post.

Clinton dismissed Sessions after the director rejected Administration entreaties to resign, contending that to voluntarily step down would violate the principle of an independent FBI. The FBI director is appointed to a 10-year term but serves at the pleasure of the President.

Sessions was appointed 5 1/2 years ago by former President Ronald Reagan.

“We cannot have a leadership vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the FBI,” Clinton said at a White House press conference. “It is time that this difficult chapter in the agency’s history is brought to a close.”

With Senate confirmation of the next FBI director not likely before fall, Clinton said that Deputy Director Floyd I. Clarke would serve as acting director. Sessions’ wife, Alice, has repeatedly accused Clarke of leading an internal cabal to force her husband from office, and Sessions has publicly questioned Clarke’s loyalty.

At his press conference, Clinton rejected the suggestion that Sessions fell victim to an internal vendetta and responded “absolutely not” when asked if the removal of Sessions would create the impression that the FBI is being subjected to political pressures.

Clinton cited the six-month-old highly critical report on Sessions’ conduct by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigated the director in the final year of the George Bush Administration.

Clinton noted that the attorney general had studied the findings and thoroughly reviewed Sessions’ leadership.

Reno said that, when she took office last March, then acting Atty. Gen. Stuart Gerson, a Republican holdover, advised her that Sessions “had exhibited flawed judgment which had an adverse effect within the FBI.”

But Reno said she wanted to make her own independent assessment of Sessions’ ability to lead the FBI, noting that she felt very strongly that the FBI director “should be above politics and not automatically subject to replacement with a change of administrations.”

The Justice Department report found, among other things, that Sessions had engaged in a sham transaction to avoid paying taxes on his use of an FBI limousine to take him to and from work, that he had billed the government for a security fence around his home that provided no security and that he had arranged business trips to places where he could meet with relatives.

Sessions dismissed the findings as biased and said that they resulted from “animus” toward him by former Atty. Gen. William P. Barr, who–on his last day in office last January–presented the report to Sessions with orders to take remedial actions.

In addition to the sections of the report that have been released, the investigation looked into whether Sessions had accepted a “sweetheart” deal on his home loan from a Washington bank and into other matters that have not been made public, sources familiar with it said.”

…From the archives @the LA Times