FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE – What you need to know

by Mustang

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (1978) (FISA) was the result of congressional investigations into federal surveillance activities conducted in the name of national security.

Through FISA, Congress sought to provide judicial and congressional oversight of foreign intelligence surveillance activities while maintaining the secrecy necessary to monitor national security threats effectively.

FISA establishes procedures for physical and electronic surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence information.  Initially, the Act addressed only electronic surveillance but has since been significantly amended to address the use of pen registers, trap and trace devices, physical searches, and business records.

How has this been working?

Jim Jordan Unleashes on the FBI and Intelligence Community

FISA also established the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a special federal court that holds nonpublic sessions to consider issuing search warrants under FISA.  Proceedings before the FISC are ex parte, meaning the government is the only party present.  Note: While this may sound odd, it allows the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies to give false testimony (without fear of challenge) to obtain duplicitous search and arrest warrants.

FISA, as amended, establishes procedures for authorizing electronic surveillance, using pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, physical searches, and business records to gather foreign intelligence.

Summary

Subchapter I of FISA (Electronic Surveillance) established procedures for conducting foreign intelligence surveillance.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) (an oxymoron) must apply to the FISC to obtain a warrant authorizing electronic surveillance of foreign agents.  In some instances, FISA requires heightened requirements for targets that are U.S. persons (U.S. citizens, permanent resident aliens, and U.S. corporations.

• Unlike domestic criminal surveillance warrants issued under the Wiretap Act, agents need to demonstrate probable cause to believe that the “target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power,” that “a significant purpose” of the surveillance is to obtain “foreign intelligence information.” That appropriate “minimization procedures” are in place.
• Agents do not need to demonstrate that committing a crime is imminent.
• For purposes of FISA, agents of foreign powers include agents of foreign political organizations and groups engaged in international terrorism and agents of foreign nations.

 Note: The preceding offers wide latitude to law enforcement officials, including the corrupt ones.

When the government has accidentally intercepted communications “under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States,” the government is required to destroy those records, “unless the Attorney General determines that the contents indicate a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.”

The President may authorize electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year without a FISC court order where the Attorney General certifies that there is “no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a U.S. person is a party,” provided the surveillance is directed solely at communications among or between foreign powers, or “the acquisition of technical intelligence … from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power.”

Subchapter II of FISA establishes procedures for physically searching “premises or property … owned, used, possessed by, or … in transit to or from a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” These procedures are substantially similar to those established for electronic foreign intelligence surveillance.

Subchapter III of FISA establishes procedures for using pen registers and trap-and-trace devices to conduct telephone or e-mail surveillance.  A pen register is a device or process that traces outgoing signals from a specific phone or computer to their destination; it is often used by law enforcement agencies.

Subchapter IV of FISA establishes procedures for obtaining a FISC order for third-party production of business records to acquire foreign intelligence information.

Amendments

The Intelligence Authorization Act (1995), the USA Patriot Act (2001), the USA Patriot Act Reauthorization (2006), the FISA Amendments Act (2008), and the FISA Sunsets Extension Act (2011) significantly amended FISA.  These acts eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the U.S. and afforded the U.S. intelligence community greater access to information unearthed during a criminal investigation.

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Implications

FISA prohibits the surveillance of or production of business records regarding a U.S. person based solely on First Amendment activities.  Section 1806 guides the sharing of foreign intelligence information among federal agencies (and with State and local partners).

Section 1825 provides similar guidance regarding using and disclosing foreign intelligence gathered via a physical search.  Section 1845 offers identical guidance for using and disclosing information acquired through pen registers and trap and trace devices gathered under Subchapter III.  Note: “Agents of foreign powers” may include U.S. citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage and violating U.S. law on territory under United States control.

The Fight Continues

The question is whether Congress should reauthorize the regularly abused Act.  Republicans, who suffered from FISA abuses during Donald J. Trump’s presidency, now propose to extend Section 702 for another five years with some reform.  The Judiciary Committee opposed this plan, which was eventually pulled from consideration.

But on April 10, all House members were briefed on FISA by officials from National Intelligence, CIA, NSA, DOJ, FBI, the Pentagon, and other serial abusers.  Noticeably, no one from the courts will offer a briefing to lawmakers.  This means that we, the people, will have to be subjected to more abuses by federal law enforcement before a judicial review can reign in a corrupt government.  The proposed changes to Section 702 can be seen here.

This is the sort of thing that happens when people elect lawyers to serve in the House of Representatives.  Nowhere does FISA protect anyone from political witchcraft, as we observed during Donald J. Trump’s presidency.  Nowhere does it require judges to ask penetrating questions before granting federal warrants, and nowhere does it impose penalties when federal law enforcement officers lie under oath to obtain warrants against citizens of the United States — when shown to be motivated for political or other illegal purposes.

Moreover, sections about national security during pandemics have been completely ignored, with the permission of the Congress of the United States.  In the legislature, silence is golden.

Data collection on Americans has become so expansive over the past thirty years that the federal government alone could not manage it, so contracts have been let.  Now, thirty years later, data collection is a massively lucrative business.  Law enforcement agencies benefit from this, as they can circumvent the Fourth Amendment outside circumstances requiring the most intrusive surveillance techniques.  For corporate data brokers, getting money from government agencies is easy.  Citizens of the United States are getting justice from the federal government, not so much.

How should this end, do you think?  Write to your Congress Critter.

About These Spying Balloons and Such

by Mustang

There is nothing new about spying balloons.  It’s been going on since the late 1700s, with more than a few interesting twists and turns.  More recently, China sent one of its spying balloons across the United States. This event might be the least secret operation China ever mounted against its American opponent. Still, it has everyone on Twitter in a Tizzy and everyone in the Air Force and Space Force scratching their collective derrieres trying to figure out what to do about it.  Apparently, shooting it down never occurred to anyone.  Space Force — dwell on that for a while.

The first balloon used for military purposes occurred in 1794 (we think), during the French Revolution.  Historians claim that the French Committee on Public Safety (a euphemism for state security) used this balloon to observe “the enemy.” The result of the Battle of Fleurus (26 June 1794) was not inconsequential because the French handed the First Coalition (Britain, Hanover, Dutch Republic, and Habsburg monarchy) suffered the loss of the Austrian Netherlands and the destruction of the Dutch Republic.  Thanks to its balloon, the French could see where to best deploy their troops.

First public demonstration in Annonay, 4 June 1783. Public Domain,

Union forces used aerial balloons during the American Civil War, which made balloon-maker Thaddeus Lowe a wealthy man.  Despite becoming a primary target of the Confederate Army, none of Lowe’s balloons were ever shot out of the air.  Civil War balloons weren’t perfect, but it was a start.  The military eventually learned how to communicate from gondolas at 1,000 or more feet with ground commanders, who had to make use of that information.

We next hear of observation balloons in the so-called Great War.  During this war, to end all wars, observation balloons and motorized dirigibles became primary targets for those new-fangled machines called airplanes.  Suddenly, being in a gondola wasn’t all the Army recruiter promised; no one was drawing “flight pay” back then.

The major shift occurred during World War II.  Military forces began to deploy balloons as defense mechanisms against enemy bombers and fighters.  Barrage balloons were much smaller than the earlier observation balloons and were tethered to the ground using thick cable wire.  They didn’t stop bombing campaigns but forced enemy aircraft to drop their bombs from higher elevations (making them less accurate).

Barrage balloons could reach an altitude above 14,000 feet.  By attaching explosives to these balloons, they became lethal to bomber crews.  World War II also saw the beginning of the so-called “Good Idea Office,” which had a “dirty tricks department.” One of their ideas was the so-called Bat Bomb.  In this scheme, high-altitude bombers would release casings containing Mexican Hibernating Bats with incendiary devices attached that ignited on a timer.  It didn’t do much for the bats, but it did play havoc with Japanese houses that were mainly constructed of wood and paper.

The Japanese returned the favor by launching balloons carrying bombs over the U.S. mainland.  Of the 10,000 or so balloons the Japanese sent into the Pacific jet stream, 300 “Fu-Go” balloons landed in the U.S. between 1944 – 1945.  They carried a 26-pound bomb intended to start forest fires over the Pacific Northwest.  The only damage these balloons caused to American citizens happened in May 1945 when one of the balloons fell on an unsuspecting picnic of five or six.  One wonders, what were the odds?

Before the beginning of the Cold War, the United States initiated a series of balloon programs focused on what was going on inside the Soviet Union and what became known as Communist China.  The Americans called these efforts “projects,” such as MOBY DICK, GENETRIX, and MOGUL.  None were resounding successes, but they were good enough to keep the effort going.

To facilitate this technology, the U.S. military turned to private industries for a hand.  The company selected was General Mills Corporation of Minneapolis, Minnesota — known for manufacturing breakfast cereals — was a significant innovator in aerospace technology, particularly in scientific balloons.  The Aeronautical Research Division of General Mills started in 1946, overseen by German scientist Otto Winzen.  Dr. Winzen determined that latex balloons were inadequate for high-altitude missions, so he introduced polyethylene materials.  At the time, General Mills worked closely with the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research (O.N.R.).

The Navy’s project was called SKYHOOK, first launched in 1947 — the first real success of balloons carrying a wide range of scientific instruments to collect data — and this was precisely what the newly created U.S. Air Force was looking for in conducting reconnaissance overflights.  Working with the Rand Corporation, the Air Force called this effort Project MOGUL.  MOGUL allowed the Americans to “listen” for such things as nuclear tests and missile launches.  Later, the Air Force added cameras that were (in time) so powerful that analysts in Washington could read automobile license plate numbers.

Was this always successful?  No.  To disguise the project’s true nature, the Air Force employed unclassified weather balloons, which nevertheless contained sensitive military equipment designed and launched by a research team from the University of New York.  MOGUL Flight No.4 became famous.  Launched in June 1947, this balloon fell out of the sky over a ranch near Roswell, New Mexico.

To allow Air Force monitoring teams to track these balloons, technicians fitted them with a chain of kite-shaped radar reflectors consisting of lightweight balsa wood frames covered in metal foil.  According to Charles Moore, who then worked as an engineer at General Mills, the foil was fixed to the balloon’s brackets using metallic tape.  General Mills purchased this tape from a New York City toy factory.

The packing tape was stamped with a decorative pattern, which included the kinds of designs that appealed most to children — hearts, flowers, sea shells, and so forth.  During the Air Force’s investigation of the material collected from Roswell, U.F.O. “experts” identified these designs as extraterrestrial hieroglyphics.  Of course, there was no other possible explanation.  This incident ignited a project the Air Force called Project BLUE BOOK lasting 75 years.

Near space reconnaissance has been going on for a very long time, as evidenced by the U.S. Air Force’s earliest experiments with high-altitude balloons and the fact that the Soviet Union shot down “Wrong Way” Powers in 1960.  This success was undoubtedly a result of spies having infiltrated the Air Force and/or C.I.A., knowing how high their missiles would need to travel before reaching the U-2 altitude threshold.  Such is life in the fast lane.

But now the chickens have come home to roost.  Despite the Air Force’s unwillingness to speak about the recent Chinese reconnaissance balloon, there are some interesting questions we should demand answers to.  Could China deliver into our atmosphere their latest virus product from the U.S.-financed Wu Han Labs? Are the Chinese keeping an eye on our agricultural production?  Or could foreign agents introduce bacteria affecting our food supplies, milk obtained from America’s dairy operations?

We started it — and I find it interesting that the Air Force/Space Force seems not to know what to do about it.  Maybe we should ask the Russians or Chinese how they responded to our high-altitude balloons.

Mustang has blogs called  Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Our Next Worse Enemy – NATO Allies

by Mustang

In 1980, the People’s Republic of China had no sophisticated navy, no hypersonic aircraft, no space satellites, no ICBM missiles, and no sophisticated communications capability.  All they had in 1980 was a very large army incapable of standing up to the People’s Army of Vietnam.  China’s military apparatus, the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN), now challenges the sophisticated lethality of the Armed Forces of the United States.

How China did it 

From around 1972, when President Richard M. Nixon resumed U.S. relations with the PRC, China’s state security apparatus (including the Ministry of State Security, the United Front Work Department, and the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (and numerous front organizations and state-owned enterprises) has systematically gained access to the inner-workings of foreign industries, science, and technology.

China’s effort has involved spy craft, but most of their information acquisitions have been as simple as asking for collaborative relationships with foreign universities and research facilities.  European journalists tell us that most of China’s gains result from the willingness of European scientists and technologists to share what they know with their Chinese associates — all of whom work for the Chinese military.

European journalists cooperating within what they term the China Science Investigations have determined that European scientists and academics have collaborated with Chinese counterparts on more than 350,000 separate projects.  Of those, nearly 3,000 have taken place with members of the Chinese military.  To clarify, European journalists explain that such collaborations include “studies where scientists from Western European universities have collaborated with Chinese colleagues who are officially part of the Chinese military.”

The amount of “cooperation” with the Chinese military has more than doubled since around 2012; news reports claim that half of those nearly 3,000 contacts were affiliated with the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) at universities in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and (of course), Germany.

Journalists report that NUDT’s explicit purpose is to strengthen the armed forces and the Chinese nation.  They further certify that NUDT is the top institute of the People’s Liberation Army and is known for its success in researching supercomputers and hypersonic missiles.  We know this from Rebecca Arcesati, a German researcher at the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS) in Germany.

We also learned that in Germany alone, at least 230 research articles were published between 2000 through 2022. Chinese military scientists and researchers have collaborated with German research institutions in drone studies, artificial intelligence, space travel, logistics, radar, and underwater communications.  There were also collaborations with the Chinese military in engineering, physics, and nuclear and conventional weapons.

In the Netherlands (even after Dutch intelligence services warned of the threat of China’s intelligence network in that country), Chinese agents brazenly sought out high-quality technology and scientific advancements.  In that country, ninety (90) military scientists from China gathered information from Dutch universities and other research facilities.  The report tells us that these Chinese “military scientists” were keen on discovering detailed information about hypersonic aircraft and reinforced concrete.

Is this working?  Apparently, the Chinese have obtained details of the United States’ submarine propulsion system from the Clinton administration, and they’ve produced a nearly exact copy of the F-22/F-35 super-secret aircraft (China’s FC-31) from the Obama Administration.

Of possible interest to you, I found a European platform Follow the Money . The site tells us that FTM is an organization that holds the powerful accountable by providing radically independent investigative journalism. FTM and several other media outlets have discovered how the People’s Republic of China (PRC) could have made its magnificent leap from a backwater country to a superpower within a short span of only 40 years.

FBI Director Christopher Wray has warned the United States and its allies of China’s threat, claiming the Chinese government was “set on stealing your technology”.

The Question 

NOW might be a good time to ask a two-part question: (1) How much information has the United States Department of Defense shared with its NATO allies (which includes Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). (2) How much of that information did our NATO allies share with their Chinese research fellows?

Individual and Collective Interests 

Mutual security alliances are similar to trade relations.  To make this point, I will use Germany as my example.  The only reason Germany would establish trade relations with any other country is that Germany expects to benefit from such an agreement.  Similarly, there is no reason for Germany to join NATO if Germany would not profit from the alliance.

If the preceding paragraph is true, one should wonder why Germany would share NATO secrets (and technologies) with a potential adversary (China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Iraq).  One might also wonder how Germany could maintain its NATO membership if it is not committed to the NATO alliance.

European countries face increased security challenges: antagonistic Russia and Ukraine, political instability in the Middle East, cyberwar, terrorism, unrestrained migration, and rejection of EU policies by the civilian population.  It is mind-numbing to realize that many European countries seem not to understand that China is behind more than a few of these threats and challenges.

Today’s world is very dangerous — as scary as at any time in the past.  In the past, the danger came from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and Japan.  Today the threat comes from demographic shifts in Europe, a European Council and justice court that imposes draconian policies and mandates on unstable populations, world health challenges, and threats to energy security and food distribution.  In the United States, the American people are struggling under a government that spends more time creating problems than solving them.

No one in Europe or the United States is paying attention to China’s robust efforts to undermine western democracies.  Worse, European academics are aiding and abetting China’s military.  The politicians are turning a blind eye to China’s rape of western science and technology — that is to say, science and technology that China intends to use against Europe and the United States.  Worst of all, America is asleep at the switch with absolutely no concern at all that our “trusted allies” are providing U.S. science and technology to our most likely next worse enemy.

Something else to think about come Election Day.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Pompeo: ‘Something not quite right about Feinstein’

 

Maria Bartiromo interviewed Secretary of State Pompeo  yesterday on Sunday Morning Futures. The attention has been on Feinstein’s remarks that China is a swell guy.

 

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) said that China is “growing into a respectable nation” and cautioned against holding the country accountable for its role in the worldwide coronavirus outbreak.

But the headline that should be is Pompeo alluding to China’s interference with our elected congressmen. It even gets better.

“There’s something not quite right.” 

He outs her many meetings with Iran’s foreign minister:

“You’ll recall, she meets with some frequency with Foreign Minister Zarif there too.”

Earlier post:

Senator Feinstein caught talking to Iran on unsecure IPhone

“Don Trump Jr. has a meeting with a couple of Russians, meeting turns out to nothing, and it’s the crime of the century. Except Mueller says it’s not, but the media says it is. You have Dianne Frankenfeinstein on her damn cell phone with the foreign minister of Iran! Anybody want to know what they discussed? ‘No, no, that’s Dianne, we like her,’” Levin said.

Maria Bartiromo asked Pompeo about Senator Feinstein’s driver, a Chinese spy, who worked for the California senator for 20 years. This after the past week of Senator Feinstein praising the Chinese Communist regime.

 

 

Pompeo dropped the big  bomb on Feinstein and the interference  of China on U.S. elections- add the Iran foreign minister:

Mike Pompeo: We did. You’ll recall, she meets with some frequency with Foreign Minister Zarif there too.

 

I moved the clip to about 4:50 and that portion ends at about 8:40, however the full interview is well worth taking the time.

 

 

Mike Pompeo: Maria I saw the statement by Senator Feinstein, I found it perplexing. I saw statements of senior American CEOs from the big tech companies this week saying they hadn’t heard or seen about intellectual property theft from the United States. That’s crazy talk. Here’s the good news. The good news is we’re getting nearly every member of Congress aligned along the administration’s policies with China. When we voted for Hong Kong freedom there were over 400 votes in the House and nearly every vote in the Senate… I think the tide is turning. Not only in the United States but all across the world the threat of the Chinese Communist Party is becoming clearer and clearer… I talked at the Nixon Library about this not being a battle about China but about authoritarianism and freedom. That’s the fight America needs to be engaged on…

Maria Bartiromo: I was struck by Dianne Feinstein because didn’t she have a driver for 20 years that we ended up finding out was a Chinese spy?

Mike Pompeo: We did. You’ll recall, she meets with some frequency with Foreign Minister Zarif there too. There’s something not quite right. And this is not consistent with America’s national security in either case. These are adversaries that intend harm for her state of California and I wish she would not engage in this kind of rhetoric and these kind of meetings that undermine these kind of efforts.

Read the text of the full interview Here

 

The double standard over “spies.”

 

 

Bonus:

John Kerry’s Iran family connection Foreign Minister Zarif targeted by Trump

June 25, 2019

 

Other than that, all is well in the swamp.

Two different tales from two criminals – Comey & Clapper over “spying”

 

Clapper and Comey must be sweating bullets as their charade is winding down. Both are on the MSM payroll – CBS and CNN and thus must dutifully meet their obligations for appearances this week apparently. Here are two tales from two criminals.

Interesting that the two are taking different roads as to the business of “spying.” I for one am looking forward to watching this whole thing play out.

Clapper on Obama Admin.: What They Did to Trump Campaign ‘Meets the Dictionary Definition of Spying’

“Was it spying?”asked host Wolf Blitzer.

“Well, yeah I guess it meets the dictionary definition of spying—surveillance or spying, a term I don’t particularly like,” Clapper said. “It’s not a term used by intelligence people. It has a negative connotation, a rogue operation, out of control, not in compliance of the law, and that’s not the case at all.”

Last month, Clapper slammed Attorney General William Barr’s assertion that Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was spied on, saying his claim was “stunning and scary.”

“I thought it was both stunning and scary,” Clapper said. “I was amazed at that and rather disappointed that the attorney general would say such a thing… The term ‘spying’ has all kinds of negative connotations, and I have to believe he chose that term deliberately.”

“It would have been far more appropriate for him to just defer to that investigation rather than postulating with apparently no evidence. He just has a feeling that there was spying against the campaign,” Clapper added.  Read more

 

 

Former FBI Director James Comey says the FBI never spied on the Trump campaign. Comey, whose book is entitled “A Higher Loyalty,” joined CBSN with his response to the president’s attacks on the intelligence community.

 

Julian Assange – About the Law

 

Julian Assange – About the law.

  by Mustang – Our man on the beat in the U.K.

 

The law must be applied equally no matter how rich or poor, who they know, or how influential they may be in national or state politics.

Julian Assange

Julian Assange has been charged with ONE count of violating the laws of the United States.  This one count is broken down into several elements or sections of Title 18, United States Code.

The specifics allege (not yet proved) are that Mr. Assange illegally obtained records of the United States government, that he conspired to obtain these records, and that he knowingly and willfully received these records from computers and data bases under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.

He may have in fact done exactly that.

Initially, I thought there may be a similarity in what Assange is accused of doing, and the publication of classified material by the New York Times in 1971.  This could still be true if a court of competent jurisdiction treats Mr. Assange as a publisher of news, but there does remain one glaring distinction.

In 1971, the New York Times obtained classified material, notified the government that the paper was in possession of the material, informed the government that they intended to publish a story relating to the contents of that information, and offered the government an opportunity to comment on it before publication.

The government responded by going to court to SUPPRESS the New York Times.  Suppression of the press is what that issue was all about.  The Supreme Court ruled that the government may not suppress the news media simply because it had obtained information that the government did not want known.

Bradley Manning

If the government can prove a conspiracy between Assange and Bradley-Chelsea Manning to unlawfully obtain classified information, which is to say that Mr. Assange was a participant in the theft, then he’ll be spending a few seconds in federal prison, as did Bradley-Chelsea Manning.  It won’t matter whether Assange is a citizen of the United States.

Federal attorneys obtain convictions on foreign persons all the time.  But there is still a hurdle: the United States government does not have possession of Mr. Assange.  Mr. Assange is not currently within the jurisdiction of the United States.

So, the first hurdle is his extradition to United States jurisdiction.  Assange has two things going for him right now: (1) he has top ranked attorneys in the UK representing him, and (2) A British judge will hear the case for extradition.  This means that there is no guarantee that the US will be granted extradition in this case, particularly if the London court decides that Assange is a news media publisher or outlet.

All that aside, without any in-depth knowledge of the information he obtained, or its actual effects (as opposed to what the government may allege), we should perhaps acknowledge that were it not for Mr. Assange, the American people would not know that:

1. Hillary Clinton’s violated federal law in her mishandling of classified information.  This did not appear to be a concern to the Department of Justice and to this date, Ms. Clinton has not been charged for violating federal law in the handling of classified material, or her attempt to obstruct justice by bleaching her hard drives.
2. Hillary Clinton (who at the time was the de facto chairman of the Democratic National Party) conspired to derail the candidacy of presidential hopeful Bernie Stalin.
3. Hillary Clinton diverted money from the DNC into her own campaign account.
4. The murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich was probably an inside job.
5. Hillary Clinton conspired with others to manufacture and produce a phony dossier on presidential hopeful Donald J. Trump.
6. Hillary Clinton was deeply entrenched with US finance interests in pursuit of her own net worth.
7. The DNC claim that Assange hacked their computer with the assistance of Russian secret intelligence operatives amazingly mirrors similar allegations Clinton and the DNC made about President Trump.
8. James Clapper is a liar on the issue of collecting information (data mining) (without warrant) on citizens of the United States.

On the question of whether Assange is a de factor journalist, he has been the recipient of numerous news media awards in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and a 2019 nominee for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Summation:

I believe the federal government is obligated to pursue extradition.  If he is extradited, he will not be granted bail.  He will have his day in court—which is far more than anyone can say about Hillary Clinton.

Primary responsibility for safeguarding classified material rests with the United States government.  Apparently, the federal government has been inept in doing this.  We should not hold Assange responsible for the failings of federal authorities to safeguard sensitive material.  If Mr. Assange is held to account for violations of law, so be it.  Has anyone in the government been held to account for their criminal negligence safeguarding our country’s secrets?

 

Mustang has other great reads over at his two blogs – Thoughts from Afar

with Old West Tales and Fix Bayonets

Flashback Saturday – Looking back at James Comey and why he was so dangerous

 

A few weeks ago I started a “Flashback Saturday”. On Saturday, a “whatever happened” to answer or review previous news I have covered and how the story has unfolded. A “Blast from the past.”

How about James Comey and now what we know about him. I will throw in a short one on Mueller.

First I need to start out with

Comey: Citizens Should Have No Secrets That The Government Can’t Access March 6, 2017

The latest sign of this stealth takeover of civil rights and freedom was epitomized in recent Senate testimony by FBI Director James Comey, who voiced his objections to civilian use of encryption to protect personal data – information the government has no automatic right to obtain.

As reported by The New American, Comey testified that he believes the government’s spy and law enforcement agencies should have unfettered access to everything Americans may store or send in electronic format: On computer hard drives, in so-called i-clouds, in email and in text messaging – for our own safety and protection. Like many in government today, Comey believes that national security is more important than constitutional privacy protections or, apparently, due process.

Comey had ‘false and dangerous view’ of FBI role June 9, 2017

 “Independent? This is a false and dangerous view of law enforcement in the American system. Mr. Comey is describing a FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters.” More at Washington Examiner

Interview with Robert F. Kennedy during which he describes FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover as “dangerous” and “rather a psycho.” Sound familiar?

 

 

Here are thoughts from our savant from Arizona in the form of one John McCain.

“When you fire probably, arguably, the most respected person in America, you better have a very good explanation…”

 

FBI Director: I have to check to see if Obama can kill citizens on U.S. soil January 26, 2013

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “three criteria” for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.
Pressed by House lawmakers about a recent speech in which Holder described the legal justification for assassination, Mueller, who was attending a hearing on his agency’s budget, did not say without qualification that the three criteria could not be applied inside the U.S.
“I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” Mueller said when asked by Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting. Graves followed up asking whether “from a historical perspective,” the federal government has “the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas.”
“I’m going to defer.

For an abbreviated view of what Comey has been doing with his life:

FBI James Comey, the ultimate chameleon who sold his sou  July 6, 2016 

The author of this piece makes a prescient observation regarding the Comey Ashcroft relationship back in the 1990’s when they worked together:

On the surface, it’s an odd pairing: Comey—who cites liberal theologian Reinhold Niebuhr as a formative influence, and who can sing along with Good Charlotte pop-punk hits—and Ashcroft, a reactionary born-again Christian who breaks into spirited renditions of biblical hymns. There’s little risk Comey will lose his sense of humor in his new job. It’s only his soul that’s up for grabs.

 

Twenty Million Americans spied on, unmasked, and Comey’s coverup?

It is claimed that Millions of Americans were spied on and were unmasked and better yet? Comey is up to his eyeballs in it. The story first came to light back in March. Story Here. The story never got legs. On Monday, a lawsuit was filed. The documents are worth a look.

I understand why Trump is fed up with Sessions. Sessions essentially walked away from his position as head of the DOJ when he recused himself over Russia Russia Russia… did you see either of Obama’s DOJ’s Directors recuse themselves?  Buckle your seatbelt:

A former U.S. intelligence contractor tells Circa he walked away with more than 600 million classified documents on 47 hard drives from the National Security Agency and the CIA, a haul potentially larger than Edward Snowden’s now infamous breach.

And now he is suing former FBI Director James Comey and other government figures, alleging the bureau has covered up evidence he provided them showing widespread spying on Americans that violated civil liberties.

Montgomery alleges that more than 20 million American identities were illegally unmasked – credit reports, emails, phone conversations and Internet traffic, were some of the items the NSA and CIA collected.

“They’re doing this domestic surveillance on Americans, running a project on U.S. soil,” Montgomery alleged. He did not disclose the classified name of the project but said he revealed all aspects of the project during his interview with the FBI. 

“Can you imagine what someone can do with the information they were collecting on Americans, can you imagine that kind of power.”

Montgomery divulged to the FBI a ”pattern and practice of conducting illegal, unconstitutional surveillance against millions of Americans, including prominent Americans such as the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen, and others such as Donald J. Trump, as well as Plaintiffs themselves,” Montgomery and Klayman alleged in their suit.

“Plaintiffs were assured that the FBI, under Defendant Comey, would conduct a full investigation into the grave instances of illegal and unconstitutional activity set forth by Montgomery. However, the FBI, on Defendant Comey’s orders, buried the FBI’s investigation because the FBI itself is involved in an ongoing conspiracy to not only conduct the aforementioned illegal, unconstitutional surveillance, but to cover it up as well,” the suit added.

He said he returned the hard drives to the FBI, a fact confirmed in government documents reviewed by Circa.

Montgomery says the evidence he gave to the FBI chronicle the warrantless collection of phone, financial and personal data and the unmasking of identities in spy data about millions of Americans,.

“This domestic surveillance was all being done on computers supplied by the FBI,” Montgomery told Circa in an interview. “So these supercomputers, which are FBI computers, the CIA is using them to do domestic surveillance.”

More at Circa

Comey: Citizens Should Have No Secrets That The Government Can’t Access

James Comey, the ultimate Universal Man, a wolf in sheep’s clothes or a chameleon? He has been a Prosecutor, Lobbyist, Hedge Fund operator, Chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. For some reason, Obama felt safe enough to appoint him head of the FBI. let us take a second look at his background. This is taken from a number of my posts since 2013. First his view on spying.

The latest sign of this stealth takeover of civil rights and freedom was epitomized in recent Senate testimony by FBI Director James Comey, who voiced his objections to civilian use of encryption to protect personal data – information the government has no automatic right to obtain.

As reported by The New American, Comey testified that he believes the government’s spy and law enforcement agencies should have unfettered access to everything Americans may store or send in electronic format: On computer hard drives, in so-called i-clouds, in email and in text messaging – for our own safety and protection. Like many in government today, Comey believes that national security is more important than constitutional privacy protections or, apparently, due process. After all, aren’t criminals the only ones who really have anything to hide?

In testimony before a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled “Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy” Comey said that in order to stay one step ahead of terrorists, as well as international and domestic criminals, Uncle Sam’s various spy and law enforcement agencies should have access to available technology used to de-encrypt protected data. Also, he believes the government should be the final arbiter deciding when decryption is necessary.More over at  Zero Hedge

He voted for Carter in 1980, but in ’84, Comey: “I voted for Reagan—I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”

“I had no sense whether Jim was an R or a D,” says Eric Holder Jr., who worked closely with Comey when Holder was deputy attorney general to Janet Reno in the Clinton administration—and who remains a confirmed D.

Sounds like a man with a story. Where did he start? In law. He was a partner at firm McGuireWoods, where, among other things, he successfully defended a company against claims its machinery had caused asbestos-related injuries.

And from there? From there he moved into public prosecution and eventually came to the attention of President George W Bush, who appointed him deputy attorney general of the United States in 2003. But he left after two years in the role.

To do what? Sell tanks, bombs and jets to drop them from. He joined Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s largest defence contractors, as senior vice-president. (A Lobbyist)

In 2005, Comey left law enforcement for the defense industry, joining money-in-politics powerhouse Lockheed Martin. As senior vice president and general counsel he earned more than $6 million in compensation in his last full year with the company.

And then? Dipped his toe in the world of hedge funds at Bridgewater Associates before joining the board of HSBC Holdings.

The author of this piece makes a prescient observation regarding the Comey Ashcroft relationship:

On the surface, it’s an odd pairing: Comey—who cites liberal theologian Reinhold Niebuhr as a formative influence, and who can sing along with Good Charlotte pop-punk hits—and Ashcroft, a reactionary born-again Christian who breaks into spirited renditions of biblical hymns. There’s little risk Comey will lose his sense of humor in his new job. It’s only his soul that’s up for grabs

Now we know why it was so odd.

Oh, by the way, where’s John Ashcroft today? Why he’s on the Board of Directors of Blackwater USA,which now goes by the harmless sounding name – Academi – conjuring up images of ivy-covered buildings and lounging intellectuals.

Comey and Ashcroft – Lockheed Martin and Blackwater: Defenders of our civil liberties?

Eric Holder? He is now a white-collar defense attorney at a firm that lobbies for major banks, pharmaceutical companies and defense contractors.

Other posts that add to the pot:

FBI releases Trump’s real estate investigation records from 1970’s  February 16, 2017 — bunkerville. Why now Mr. Comey? February 16, 2017??

FBI Comey got millions from Clinton Foundation Defense Contractor  September 30, 2016 – a  bit of a review of earlier posts with a different spin.

Additional Sources: Guardian  NY Mag   Open Secrets

Bunkerville: Guess where in the world Former AG Eric Holder is working?

Warrantless Access to Internet searches bill fails, but just for now

The wolf is snapping at our heels thanks this time to John McCain of “build the dang fence” fame that meant nothing. “Warrantless access.” That’s what the government has in mind. Due Process means nothing as well. The Senate fell two votes short, but buddy McConnell promises to bring this up once more after a few more arms are broken over the summer. Votes are at the bottom of the post. All of this information stored no doubt in the Utah Data Center. Here tis:

Agents would be able to access the information using national security letters — a kind of administrative subpoena that does not require a court order and would likely bar an Internet provider from telling its customers that their communication was searched. Currently, the FBI must get a warrant to obtain the data.

An amendment designed to allow the government warrantless access to internet browsing histories has been narrowly defeated in the Senate.

“Due process ought to apply as it relates to guns, but due process wouldn’t apply as it relates to the internet activity of millions of Americans,” said Wyden.

The amendment fell two votes short of the required 60 votes to advance.

But the effort is far from dead. Majority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who switched his vote at the last minute, submitted a motion to reconsider the vote following the defeat.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the amendment as an add-on to the commerce, justice, and science appropriations bill earlier this week. McCain said in a statement on Monday that the amendment would “track lone wolves” in the wake of the Orlando massacre, in which Omar Mateen, who authorities say radicalized himself online, killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in the Florida city.

In other words, the FBI will be able to tell where and when a user logged in and out of a website, including social media sites.

More ZD Net

Cloture on S.Amdt. 4787 (McCain) to H.R. 2578: To amend … — Senate Vote #108 — Jun 22, 2016

GovTrack.us‎ – 

This vote was related to amendment S.Amdt. 4787 (John McCain) to H.R. 2578. The title of …

More news for H.R.2578 site:govtrack.us

The Utah Data Center is up and running…….