The FBI goes out of its way to prove it can no longer be trusted

And that is such a depressing statement to make, because I used to work for the FBI.

First, the article from the WashingtonTimes.com:

FBI says lack of public interest in Hillary emails justifies withholding documents

by Stephen Dinan

Hillary Clinton’s case isn’t interesting enough to the public to justify releasing the FBI’s files on her, the bureau said this week in rejecting an open-records request by a lawyer seeking to have the former secretary of state punished for perjury.

Ty Clevenger has been trying to get Mrs. Clinton and her personal attorneys disbarred for their handling of her official emails during her time as secretary of state. He’s met with resistance among lawyers, and now his request for information from the FBI’s files has been shot down.

“Shot down” by whom? Right. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Who should be investigating an issue such as this.

It appears I’m going to have to change my classic logo about the FBI.  .  .

From this very specific graphic .  .  .

To this very generic graphic. And it pains me. It pains me terribly to realize the biased and politicized depths to which the FBI has sunk.

I shake my head in sadness, I well and truly do. This is so incredibly disspiriting for me and for law enforcement everywhere. In retrospect, truly, what does your NA experience really mean?

“You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject,” FBI records management section chief David M. Hardy told Mr. Clevenger in a letter Monday.

“It is incumbent upon the requester to provide documentation regarding the public’s interest in the operations and activities of the government before records can be processed pursuant to the FOIA,” Mr. Hardy wrote.

Oh. Yes. Because there isn’t more of a clangor and clamoring — by the “public” — that is sufficient justification to withhold facts and evidence.

Mrs. Clinton, was the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, former chief diplomat, former U.S. senator, and former first lady of both the U.S. and Arkansas.

Her use of a secret email account to conduct government business while leading the State Department was front-page news for much of 2015 and 2016, and was so striking that the then-FBI director broke with procedure and made both a public statement and appearances before Congress to talk about the bureau’s probe.

It was, oddly enough, under her watch in which four Americans lost their lives. That no longer “counts.” To mention that now is nothing but “bias” and “prejudice.”

In the end, the FBI didn’t recommend charges against Mrs. Clinton, concluding that while she risked national security, she was too technologically inept to know the dangers she was running, so no case could be made against her.

The FBI says it will only release records from its files if a subject consents, is dead, or is of such public interest that it overrides privacy concerns.

Protecting those elements who need to be protected by the Left for the Left, so that people continue to vote for the Left. That is the basis for the FBI’s politicized decision.

Mr. Clevenger said he thought it would have been clear why Mrs. Clinton’s case was of public interest, but he sent documentation anyway, pointing to a request by members of Congress for an investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton perjured herself in testimony to Capitol Hill.

“I’m just stunned. This is exactly what I would have expected had Mrs. Clinton won the election, but she didn’t.

It looks like the Obama administration is still running the FBI,” Mr. Clevenger told The Washington Times

“How can a story receive national news coverage and not be a matter of public interest? If this is the new standard, then there’s no such thing as a public interest exception,” he said.

Correct. This is a biased decision expected from, say, a Hillary Clinton administration.

This is another in a continuing series of revelations indicating that, clearly, the Deep State is alive and well, influencing every level and agency in DC.

You were told at some point, when learning American history, that there are three separate and distinct branches of government as created and delineated by our founding fathers in their brilliance.

I would not just submit but insist there are four branches of government, as indicated.

  • Legislative;
  • Judicial;
  • Executive;
  • Bureaucratic.

This newest branch, the likes of which we’re now realizing, is frequently every bit as powerful and occasionally more so than the other three. This is one obvious instance. Hardy is a bureaucrat. A paper shuffler. He was not elected. Therefore he gets to stymie the investigation and hold back the information.

Just one basic question: since when is whatever amount of interest shown by the public a deciding factor in the revelation of documents which are not in and of themselves classified and therefore subject to nondisclosure?

Is the FBI saying that, had their been a greater rumbling by “the public” that the agency would have looked more favorably upon Clevenger’s request? Or is the FBI saying, via Hardy, that he is solely making the determination — and he is — the information is not in the public’s interest?

Good to know. A perception of “public interest” is now a lawful criteria with which to determine the relevancy of a FOIA request. I suppose Hardy will expect future requests to have ginned-up public support behind them prior to consideration.

This is the same FBI where former director James Comey in 2016 laid out a perfect case against Hillary Clinton then decided he was going to not recommend an investigation, taking this decision out of the hands of then-AG Loretta Lynch.

This is the same FBI where former director James Comey decided there was no conflict of interest with his second-in-command.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton confidant, helped steer $675,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an FBI official who went on to lead the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system, according to a report.

The political action committee of McAuliffe, the Clinton loyalist, gave $467,500 to the state Senate campaign of the wife of Andrew McCabe, who is now deputy director of the FBI, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The report states Jill McCabe received an additional $207,788 from the Virginia Democratic Party, which is heavily influenced by McAuliffe.

This is the same FBI where former director James Comey decided to purposely leak classified information to a third party in order to prompt a special counsel to investigate President Trump regarding Russia, et al.

We already know the FBI doesn’t obey various laws itself.

Jason Chaffetz reveals: FBI doesn’t follow the law

And, further, it doesn’t wish to be accountable.

First, the background information from FCW.com:

House seeks clarity on FBI facial recognition database

by Matt Leonard

The FBI has expanded its access to photo databases and facial recognition technology to support its investigations. Lawmakers, however, have voiced a deep mistrust in the bureau’s ability to protect those images of millions of American citizens and properly follow regulations relating to transparency.

Kimberly Del Greco, the deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, faced tough questioning from both sides of the aisle at a March 22 hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

“So here’s the problem,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the committee chairman. “You’re required by law to put out a privacy statement and you didn’t and now we’re supposed to trust you with hundreds of millions of people’s faces.”

The FBI’s NGI-IPS allows law enforcement agencies to search a database of over 30 million photos to support criminal investigations. The bureau can also access an internal unit called Facial Analysis, Comparison and Evaluation, which can tap other federal photo repositories and databases in 16 states that can include driver’s license photos. Through these databases, the FBI has access to more than 411 million photos of Americans, many of whom have never been convicted of a crime.

The FBI obeys all laws. And no, the FBI isn’t politicized at all.

Perish the thought.

Except that confidence in the FBI is itself perishing.

BZ

 

Obama’s newest cagey OBSTRUCTION on Susan Rice documents

My, Barack Hussein Obama is being quite clever again, by moving documents relating to Susan Rice and her unmasking of Republicans to his library so that they may now be sealed and inaccessible.

From Breitbart.com:

Judicial Watch: Susan Rice ‘Unmasking’ Documents Moved from NSC to Obama Library

by Kristina Wong

The National Security Council cannot hand over records relating to former National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s surveillance of Americans, because they have been moved to the Obama presidential library and may be sealed for as many as five years, conservative watchdog Judicial Watch announced Monday.

Of course, the first thing one thinks is: surely nothing but innocent coincidence, yes?

The NSC informed Judicial Watch in a letter dated May 23 that materials related to Rice’s requests to know the identities of Americans swept up in surveillance of foreign targets, including any Trump campaign or transition officials, have been moved to the library.

The NSC’s Director of Access Management John Powers said in the letter:

Documents from the Obama administration have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library. You may send your request to the Obama Library. However, you should be aware that under the Presidential Records Act, Presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after an administration has left office.

Now if this isn’t perfect, I don’t know what is.

Judicial Watch earlier this year filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for those documents, including of communications between Rice and any intelligence community member or agency regarding any Russian involvement in the 2016 elections, the hacking of Democratic National Committee computers, or any suspected communications between Russia and Trump officials.

It began as I documented here when, in his last days, Mr Obama changed a few things.

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.

And executives in 16 agencies — not just the FBI, CIA and NSA — have the right to request unmasked information.

Confirmed by the NYTimes.com, you see.

N.S.A. Gets More Latitude to Share Intercepted Communications

by Charlie Savage

WASHINGTON — In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

Why are these documents important? Because, if you recall, it was Susan Rice who was responsible for the unmasking of Trump and others in his campaign and staff via NSA intercepts.

Mike Cernovich wrote:

Susan Rice Requested Unmasking of Incoming Trump Administration Officials

Susan Rice, who served as the National Security Adviser under President Obama, has been identified as the official who requested unmasking of incoming Trump officials, Cernovich Media can exclusively report.

The White House Counsel’s office identified Rice as the person responsible for the unmasking after examining Rice’s document log requests. The reports Rice requested to see are kept under tightly-controlled conditions. Each person must log her name before being granted access to them.

Upon learning of Rice’s actions, H. R. McMaster dispatched his close aide Derek Harvey to Capitol Hill to brief Chairman Nunes.

This reporter has been informed that Maggie Haberman has had this story about Susan Rice for at least 48 hours, and has chosen to sit on it in an effort to protect the reputation of former President Barack Obama.

The House Intelligence Committee has also subpoenaed the intelligence community for information on unmasking requests by Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers. Guess what? Crickets.

Isn’t this the perfect circular firing squad? And isn’t it wonderful when the Demorats get to so thoroughly pre-plan their obstruction via Barack Hussein Obama?

BZ

 

Hillary wanted to abrogate security rules from the start

Hillary Clinton DELETESFirst, from FoxNews.com:

Clinton tried to change rules to use BlackBerry in secure facility for classified information

by Catherine Herridge & Pamela K. Browne

Less than a month after becoming secretary of state, and registering the personal email domain that she would use exclusively for government business, Hillary Clinton’s team aggressively pursued changes to existing State Department security protocols so she could use her BlackBerry in secure facilities for classified information, according to new documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

What that means is: the Hillary Clinton lawbreaking started early.

Hilary Clinton ELECT MEBecause it’s all about the convenience for Hillary Clinton.  Rules and regulations regarding classified information and materials, well, those rules are for little people, not for Clintons.  Clintons are above everyone else.  They piss on regular rules and regulations with contempt.

As Peggy Noonan once said, Bill Clinton is a “low-rent oaf with his squat and grasping wife.”

Squat and grasping wife indeed.  I can see that vision in my head as can most sensible people thinking with their heads and not their amygdala.

“Anyone who has any appreciation at all of security, you don’t ask a question like that,” cybersecurity analyst Morgan Wright told Fox News.  “It is contempt for the system, contempt for the rules that are designed to protect the exact kind of information that was exposed through this email set up. “

Clinton has claimed she used the personal account and BlackBerry for convenience. 

But the kicker?

In January 2009, Clinton signed at least two non-disclosure agreements in which she promised to protect classified information. Since then, more than 2,100 emails containing classified information have been identified, as well as 22 Top Secret that are too damaging to national security to release.

Most people say Hillary Clinton will remain unscathed.

I am not so convinced.

The year is still young.

BZ

 

Benghazi clarified: the Spite House KNEW

Benghazi DeadFrom TruthRevolt.org:

Smoking Gun? WH Email Instructs Officials to Blame Benghazi on Video

by Jeff Dunetz

Rhodes gave direction that the purpose of Rice’s appearance was to “underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

A new State Department document obtained by Judicial Watch  ​via a FOIA request reveals that then White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials coordinated a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama’s image and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” 

According to the Judicial Watch press release:

The main point of the White House team’s strategy was to paint the terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video and not a failure of policy,” Judicial Watch said in an emailed release. Meanwhile, the State Department — at the same time that message was being shaped — initially considered the incident simply an “attack,” and perhaps even a kidnap try, the watchdog said.

So.  All the things we in the Conservative World stated, lo, those many, many months ago, are turning out to be true.  Es wahr.  So startling.  So shocking.  But the bulk of those who read this blog are not shocked nor are we startled.  We knew it from the start.

The Obama Administration lies and it lies up front and in bold type and italics and in a large font.  In fact, the greater the lie, the greater the belief.

Here’s the e-mail:

Screen Shot 2014-04-29 at 2_01_41 PMAlso, from FoxNews.com:

Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances — where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: “RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET,” was sent to a dozen members of the administration’s inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

So.  Correct.  No one at the Spite House knew anything.  They were incredibly innocent docents whose job was to bob and weave on the issue.

One grim reminder for us all:

BZ