OpenCDA

September 28, 2018

The Swamp (ABA Division)

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , , — Bill @ 9:07 am

Lies-TruthThe Democrat-led inquisition designed and unashamedly executed to destroy the lives of US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his family goes on even after being exposed by Judiciary Committee member Senator Lindsay Graham on Thursday, September 27.  Note that at 3:17 / 4:33 of the video, Senator Graham reads from the American Bar Association’s (ABA) earlier letter favorably evaluating Judge Kavanaugh for elevation to the US Supreme Court.

Today we see that the ABA’s President Robert M. Carlson penned a letter yesterday urging that <Democrat echo chamber>”… the United States Senate Judiciary Committee (and, as appropriate, the full Senate) to conduct a confirmation vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States only after an appropriate background check into the allegations made by Professor Ford and others is completed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” </Democrat echo chamber>.

I wonder if Carlson actually listened to Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony before sending the letter or if he sent it immediately after Christine Ford’s performance concluded.

The second paragraph of Carlson’s letter states the request is made “… because of the ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law.  The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI.”

His request is pure, unadulterated hypocritical “bullshit.”   Carlson apparently lacks any level of understanding of the federal background investigation process.

If Carlson had been paying attention to yesterday’s Judiciary Committee hearing, he would have heard references to sworn statements about the “accusations and facts” he demands now be re-investigated by the FBI.  I wonder if it occurred to Carlson to ask who contacted the people identified by Ford, administered the oath, and took those sworn statements before Ford gave her testimony yesterday?   I wonder if Carlson knows that even if the FBI special agents had gathered the background information, the “careful examination of the accusations and facts” would still have been done by the Senate Judiciary Committee and its staff, not by the FBI?  That’s generally how the federal background investigation program works.  Here’s a more complete description.

Is Carlson suggesting that only the FBI has the integrity and competence to conduct personnel security background investigations?  If so, he needs to contact the CIA, NSA, DoD, DHS, Congress, and other agencies as well.  They may not yet have been informed that their in-house BIs don’t measure up to The Swamp (ABA Division) standards.

Then again, maybe Carlson’s idea has some merit.  There are a lot of now-former FBI agents who have plenty of time and probably still recall how to conduct BIs.  Let’s see:  How about Earl Pitts?  Or Richard Miller?  Or Robert HanssenJames ComeyPeter Strzok?

Oh, and don’t forget Andrew McCabe.  In fact, he should probably have the inside track.  He is being represented by attorney Michael Bromwich, one of the attorneys engaged to represent Christine Ford during her testimony at the Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

As for what Senate Judiciary Committee Rankest Member Senator Dianne Feinstein and her only slightly less rank cohorts have done to Judge Kavanaugh and his family, I suppose that’s a representative example of  “… the ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law.”

September 23, 2018

Next …!

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , , — Bill @ 8:01 pm

Lies-TruthTo very few people’s surprise, certainly not mine, just as Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation about Brett Kavanaugh began to unravel, the Hit Team has “found” another woman to raise another aged allegation.  Next …!

This allegation goes back to 1983-84 when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale.

Notice that the time frame of Ford’s allegation was in about 1982.  Deborah Ramirez’s allegation is in 1983-84.

Ramirez’s allegation addresses many of the credibility-damaging defects in Ford’s allegation.  Imagine that!  It’s a miracle!

When, I wonder, was the first background investigation (BI) report completed on Brett Kavanaugh by the federal government?   Did his first BI include the time frame of either the alleged Ford or the alleged Ramirez incidents?  If so, were the incidents included in the BI report?  How did the adjudicator discuss and assess the “facts” surrounding these alleged incidents?

Given the time frame of both the Ford and Ramirez allegations,  it is very likely the “facts” allegedly associated with them would (or should) have shown up in the reports written as part of Kavanaugh’s first full-field BI.   If they weren’t reported in Kavanaugh’s first full-field BI, then it may mean these  alleged incidents were never officially reported to police, schools, hospitals, etc.   If the alleged incidents were reported to officials or were derived from interviews of listed and derived (spinoff) references, then they should be in the first BI reports.  So should any adjudication of any effects the information had on Kavanaugh’s suitability determination for government employment or security clearance.

In some agencies’ BI reports, the investigator who conducted the interview is permitted to separately include his or her personal observations concerning the credibility (e.g., stated biases, cooperativeness, etc.) of the reporting party.  When permitted, these are almost always under a separate, clearly marked heading such as “Agent’s Notes.”

If you’re part of a Hit Team trying to “find” witnesses who will compose credible derogatory information about an older applicant, you would try to “find” witnesses whose acquaintence with the applicant preceded the applicant’s first official BI.

The kind of allegations raised so far against Brett Kavanaugh would almost certainly have been reported and adjudicated in his first or subsequent full-field BIs if the incidents leading to the allegations occurred.

To believe that the US Senators who are screaming the loudest for another “FBI investigation” of Kavanaugh, you have to also believe the screaming Senators are too ignorant and too stupid to have security clearances themselves.

Then again, the Rankest Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, did for decades have a driver allegedly with connections to the intelligence service of the People’s Republic of China, so …

August 17, 2018

Monetizing Hypocrisy

HypocrisyTwelve former senior intelligence officials have signed a statement criticizing President Trump’s decision to revoke the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.  Their letter asserts the President’s decision was based entirely on Brennan’s criticism of the President.

It is very likely that several of these officials were in that “special” category of officials who were allowed to retain their security clearances when they left the government service.   In fact, some of them may still have clearances on file with their final employer.

But as has become typical of our national, regional, and local skews media, we’re not getting the complete picture about the signators to this letter.   Some of them appear to be capitalizing on their clearance retention to financially enhance their retirement incomes. (more…)

June 14, 2018

DoJ OIG Final Report – FBI & DoJ Interference in 2016 Election

06-14-2018 OIG Report CoverThe long-awaited US Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General’s report concerning the FBI’s and DoJ’s interference in the 2016 election was released Jkune 14, 2018.  Here is a link to the 568-page (some pages blank) report.

I’m sure some readers will disagree with my characterization “the FBI’s and DoJ’s interference.”  Read the report and come to your own conclusions.  My opinion, a conclusion, is that they interfered, and that inteference seems to be continuing even now by the FBI’s and DoJ’s unlawfully withholding information Congress needs to perform its Constitutionally-required oversight.

Spontaneous statements can be valid indicators of state of mind.

The text messages between two high-up FBI employees, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, were spontaneous, not scripted.  One (see page 402 headed August 8, 2016) that was particularly chilling.  It read:

“In a text message on August 7, 2016, Page stated, “[Trump’s not ever going to become president, right?  Right?!”  Strzok responded, “No.  No he’s not.  We’ll stop it.” [emphasis mine]

Keep in mind that Peter Strzok was not some hump brick agent — he is an FBI Deputy Assistant Director.  Lisa Page was the Special Counsel to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.   It’s fair to wonder just how far they would be willing to go to stop Donald J. Trump from being elected President.

And yet in a press conference Thursday, FBI Director Christopher Wray reiterated what was asserted in the report:  There was nothing in the FBI’s conduct of the investigation that indicated political bias.   (more…)

May 25, 2018

House Conservatives Call for Another Special Counsel

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 3:10 pm

House of Reps logoSeveral members of the US House of Representatives introduced a House Resolution today calling for the appointment of a second Special Counsel to look into alleged wrongdoing by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and its parent department, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Specifically, the resolution calls on the Attorney General of the United States to, “…appoint a Special Counsel to investigate misconduct at the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, including an investigation of abuse of the FISA warrant process, how and why the Hillary Clinton probe ended, and how and why the Donald Trump-Russia probe began.”

Today’s House Resolution, even if passed, will have no effect in law but is only an expression of opinion or intention.  Its 57 recitals form a useful synopsis of the reasons offered by the Resolution’s signers to support the appointment of another Special Counsel.

(ADDENDUM/UPDATE:  The original post on 05-21-2018 included the unsigned draft of the resolution.  Today’s update replaces that draft with the resolution formally introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary  today including the names of all sponsors.)

May 20, 2018

‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , , — Bill @ 11:39 am

COSI-TopSecret-Today’s Washington Times online is running an article headlined  Top Democrat deems claims Trump campaign was spied on ‘nonsense’.

Sadly, even with mounting evidence to the contrary, there are people who refuse to believe that employees of the FBI and DoJ, acting under color of law, would spy illegally on political organizations.  History proves their disbelief to be misplaced.

Google COINTELPRO

Even the FBI’s own website acknowledges that COINTELPRO “…was later rightfully criticized by Congress and the American people for abridging first amendment rights and for other reasons.”

The aphorism in the title of my post is most often attributed to George Santayana.

May 18, 2018

‘Crossfire Hurricane’

Left J Warren-Commission-Composite-NYTWhen I read The Sulzberger Slimes online article headlined Code Name Crossfire Hurricane:  The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation on Wednesday, my first reaction to this 3800+ word piece was:   Somebody at Main Justice got a preview of the Department of Justice Inspector General’s long-overdue report regarding the FBI and DOJ’s investigation and handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe, called up their favorite Slimes stenographer, and planted a pre-emptive fluff story out ahead of an expected ‘Bad Moon Rising’.

Later in the same day I learned that the Department of Justice Inspector General had finished his long-awaited report of the FBI and DOJ’s investigation and handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe.  The draft report has not yet been released publicly, but it has been (or will be by COB Friday) made available to multiple subjects of the report for their review.

Judging from the nervous tics suddenly afflicting the Fantasyland-on-the-Potomac swamp rats in the respective Mahogany Rows at Main Justice and the FBI, John Fogerty* may have been foretelling some more career ending moves when he wrote:

Hope you got your things together
Hope you are quite prepared to die
Looks like we’re in for nasty weather
One eye is taken for an eye

Two other writers have prepared read-worthy articles for their respective online publications.  These two articles are decent counterpoints to the Slimes’ effort to soften the blows expected to be inflicted by the DoJ IG’s report.

Mollie Hemingway has written 10 Key Takeaways from The New York Times’ Error-Ridden Defense of FBI Spying on Trump Campaign.  It was published online in The Federalist on May 17, 2018.

Andrew McCarthy has written Spinning a Crossfire Hurricane:  The Times on the FBI’s Trump Investigation.  His article was published online in National Review on May 17, 2018.   (more…)

May 11, 2018

Just Who Is Our Enemy Here?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , , — Bill @ 12:05 pm

COSI-TopSecret-If you haven’t yet read Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel’s column posted on May 10, 2018, please take the time to read it.  It was entitled About That FBI ‘Source’.

Strassel asserts that Rosenstein and the US Department of Justice are stonewalling the House Intelligence Committee’s most recent subpoena because, “… the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.”

Strassel’s column implies that the FBI inserted  a highly-placed human intelligence source or recruited one already inside the Trump campaign before the 2016 election.  She also says, “… we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a ‘top secret intelligence source’ of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe.” [emphasis mine]  In other words, she suggests the FBI was running an intelligence collection operation inside the Trump campaign.

Assuming Strassel and her competitors at the Washington Post have the straight scoop, it raises a few  questions.

  • Was the Trump Campaign the only presidential campaign targeted or were other presidential candidate campaigns targeted as well?  If so, which ones?
  • Who made the final decision to allow the FBI to run a collection operation inside the Trump campaign?  Who had the authority to okay ‘a top secret intelligence source of the FBI and CIA’ to collect information about or exert influence on a candidate or nominee for President of the United States?
  • Was the ‘top secret intelligence source’ a human being or technical device(s) or combination of both?
  • Who or what was the actual target of the collection operation?  If it was only for collection, what were the essential elements of information sought?
  • Was the ‘top secret intelligence source’ of the FBI and CIA an information collector or was s/he an agent of influence (or both)?
  • Who was the human source’s handler/case officer?  To whom did the ‘top secret intelligence source’ report?
  • When?
    • When was this operation first proposed and by whom?
    • When was the operation finally approved?
    • When did the operation launch?
    • When will Congress subpoena the Case Officer’s contact reports and source?
    • If the operation began and continued after Trump had officially become the Republican nominee and was therefore receiving national security briefings, when was the Secret Service notified of this operation as it should have been?
    • When did this operation end (assuming it has!)?
    • When was candidate/nominee/President Trump first notified of this operation and by whom?
  • Was the collection operation limited to personal observations and recollections of the ‘top secret intelligence source’ or was the ‘top secret intelligence source’ allowed or directed to spot, assess, and recruit other human sources within the Trump campaign?

The actions of Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to resist the HPSCI’s subpoenas only adds to the plausibility of the Washington Post’s and Wall Street Journal’s articles.  President Trump can if he chooses declassify everything DoJ and the CIA have on this matter.  Whether he should or not must be based on legitimate national security considerations, not political expedience or advantage.

April 27, 2018

Final HPSCI Report – Russian Interference in 2016 Election

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , — Bill @ 11:32 am

HRPT-115-1 Cover

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has just publicly released its final report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.  Here is a link to the redacted report entitled Report on Russian Active Measures.

ADDENDUM:   04-28-2018 – Here is a link to the 96-page Minority Views commentary about the HPSCI final report linked above.

February 24, 2018

Schiff (HPSCI) Memo Released Today

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 2:13 pm

United_States_House_Permanent_Select_Committee_on_IntelligenceToday the Democrat Minority on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) released its own version of events concerning the FBI’s alleged misuse of a FISA warrant to intercept Trump campaign conversations.  Here is a link to the 10-page memorandum released today.

The Republican Majority on the HPSCI released its version of events in a memorandum on February 2, 2018.  Our OpenCdA post on February 2, 2018, entitled Nunes (HPSCI) Memo Released includes a link to the Republicans’ memorandum.

As you would expect, the Democrats and Republicans have differing accounts of how the FBI obtained the FISA warrant and renewals to intercept Carter Page.

The best information about the representations made to the FISA Court by the FBI would be in the applications and supporting documentation and, if available, transcripts of those FISA Court hearings.  That information is being sought by Judicial Watch in the lawsuit cited and linked in my February 2, 2018, post Nunes (HPSCI) Memo Released.  It is likely that the House Committee on the Judiciary would also be interested in reviewing the FISA applications material.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2018 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved