If Americans actually elect the perpetuation of
Obama/Crooked Hillary/Biden corrupt government on November 3, 2020; those
Americans deserve the despotism that will be in their future! Trump should win
if sane voters outnumber the insane. Pending a Trump reelection, FBI Director
Christopher Wray should be fired. It is becoming more and more apparent that
Wray is as crooked a cop as his predecessor James Comey. Comey crimes are still
being covered up by Wray. WHY? It smells of swamp stench to me.
John was assigned to the Anthony Weiner case, a top Democrat
married to Hillary Clinton adviser Huma Abedin. During his investigation of
Weiner’s computer John discovered thousands of Hillary Clinton emails and blew
the whistle on the Comey-McCabe and Strzok cover-up of evidence.
“The crickets I was hearing was
really making me uncomfortable because something was going to come down,”
Robertson said he later told Justice Department investigators. “Why isn’t
anybody here? Like if I’m the supervisor of any [counterintelligence] squad …
and I hear about this, I’m getting on with headquarters and saying, ‘Hey, some
agent working child porn here may have [Hillary Clinton] emails. Get your ass
on the phone, call [the case agent], and get a copy of that drive,’ because
that’s how it should be. And that nobody reached out to me within, like, that
night, I still to this day don’t understand what the hell went wrong.”
Robertson wrote a “Letter to Self” in late October after an Oct. 19, 2016,
meeting, during which he implored Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Kramer of the
Southern District of New York to push FBI leadership to look at the thousands of emails
he had unearthed.
“I have very deep misgivings
about the institutional response of the FBI to the congressional investigation
into the Hillary Clinton email matter … Put simply: I don’t believe the
handling of the material I have by the FBI is ethically or morally right. But
my lawyer’s advice — that I simply put my SSA on notice should cover me — is
that I have completed CYA [Cover Your Ass], and I have done so,” Robertson
wrote. “Further, I was told by [Kramer] that should I ‘whistleblow,’ I will be
prosecuted.”
Robertson continued: “I possess
— the FBI possesses — 20 times more emails than Comey testified to. … While
Comey did not know at the time about what I have, people in the FBI do now, and
as far as I know, we are being silent. … If I say or do nothing more, I am
falling short ethically and morally. And later, I may be accused of being a
Hillary Clinton hack because of the timing of all this. … But if I say
something (i.e., whistleblow), I will lose my reputation, my career, and risk
prosecution. I will also be accused of being a Donald Trump hack.”
The only advice from his bosses was
to erase his office computer, which meant leaving no record of his
investigations, a new book says.
Charles Ortel, who’s an expert on the corruption within the
Clinton Foundation believes that there were a number of Clinton Foundation
emails on the Weiner laptop:
‘October Surprise’: New details
emerge about FBI delay on Weiner laptop in 2016 https://t.co/gEsF3B7YzI
Many
of these emails likely dealt with @ClintonFdn
"entities" and/or Teneo and/or principals, clients. DOPEY,
CROOKED @Comey
belongs in JAIL, with MANY others @csthetruth
Others believe that what was found on the Weiner laptop was
shocking, we reported on this in August 2018 as well.
In late 2016 shortly before the 2016 election on November 4th, 2016,
Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, was on Breitbart radio
and he said shocking things about Weiner’s emails –
Prince claimed he had insider
knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James
Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email
server last week.
“Because of Weinergate and the sexting
scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a
warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails.
They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the
inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.
“They found State Department
emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information,
including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex
island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more
than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.
“The amount of garbage that they
found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate
circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they
gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you
don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely
indictments,’” Prince explained.
“I believe – I know, and this is
from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York –
the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the
additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten
huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the
Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the
accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the
level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually
seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said.
Prince shared that the NYPD kept a copy of all the emails on
Weiner’s computer, and the following –
Prince agreed, but said, “If
people are willing to bend or break the law and don’t really care about the
Constitution or due process – if you’re willing to use Stalinist tactics
against someone – who knows what level of pressure” could be brought to bear
against even the most tenacious law enforcement officials?
We still don’t know what happened to the Weiner
emails. We now know that Robertson did a CYA to protect himself.
The American people deserve to know what was on the laptop and in those emails.
Joe Hoft is the twin brother of
TGP's founder, Jim Hoft. His posts have been retweeted by President Trump and have
made the headlines at the Drudge Report. Joe worked as a corporate executive in
Hong Kong and traveled the world for his work, which gives him a unique
perspective of US and global current events. He has ten degrees or designations
and is the author of three books. His new book: 'In God We Trust: Not in Lying
Liberal Lunatics' is out now - please take a look and buy a copy.
Court Criticizes State Department for Providing False
Statements on Clinton Emails
(Washington, DC) – Judicial
Watch announced today that in his opening remarks at a Friday, October 12
hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth strongly criticized the
U.S. Department of State, stating, “The information that I was provided was
clearly false regarding the adequacy of the [Clinton email] search and… what we
now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email system.”
Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, Judge Lamberth said that he
was “dumbfounded” by the agency’s Inspector General report revealing that
Cheryl Mills had been given immunity and was allowed to accompany former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her FBI interview:
I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath
in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her
unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given
immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case. So I
did not know that until I read the IG report and learned that and that she had
accompanied the Secretary to her interview.
(In an April 28, 2008, ruling relating to Mills’
conduct as a White House official in responding to concerns about lost White
House email records, Judge Lamberth called Mills’ participation in the matter
“loathsome.” He further stated Mills was responsible for “the most critical
error made in this entire fiasco … Mills’ actions were totally inadequate to
address the problem.”)
Lamberth also complained that the Justice Department attorney representing the
State Department was using “doublespeak,” and playing “word games.”
The hearing had been ordered by Judge Lamberth regarding a request from Judicial Watch for testimony
under oath from Clinton, Mills and several other State Department officials
regarding the State Department’s processing of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request
and Clinton’s emails. The State Department still opposes all of Judicial
Watch’s requests for additional discovery into the Clinton email scandal.
Judge Lamberth said he was relieved that he did not allow the case to be shut
down prematurely, as the State Department had requested:
The case started with a motion for
summary judgment [seeking to close the case] here and which I denied and
allowed limited discovery because it was clear to me that at the time that I
ruled initially, that false statements were made to me by career State
Department officials and it became more clear through discovery that the
information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the
search and this – what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email
system.
I don’t know the details of what kind of IG inquiry there was into why these
career officials at the State Department would have filed false affidavits with
me. I don’t know the details of why the Justice Department lawyers did not know
false affidavits were being filed with me, but I was very relieved that I did
not accept them and that I allowed limited discovery into what had happened.
Judge Lamberth also said the State Department was using
“doublespeak” and word games:
THE COURT: The State Department
told me that it had produced all records when it moved for summary judgment and
you filed that motion. That was not true when that motion was filed.
MR. PRINCE: At that time, we had produced all –
THE COURT: It was not true.
MR. PRINCE: Yes, it was – well, Your Honor, it might be that our search could
be found to be inadequate, but that declaration was absolutely true.
THE COURT: It was not true. It was a lie.
MR. PRINCE: It was not a lie, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What – that’s doublespeak.
***
PRINCE: There’s strong precedent
saying that items not in the State’s possession do not need to be searched….
THE COURT: And that’s because
the Secretary was doing this on a private server? So it wasn’t in the
State’s possession?… So you’re playing the same word game she played?
In March 2016, Judge Lamberth granted “limited discovery” to Judicial Watch:
Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here,
limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA
cases.
***
[Judicial Watch] is certainly
entitled to dispute the State Department’s position that it has no obligation
to produce these documents because it did not “possess” or “control” them at
the time the FOIA request was made. The State Department’s willingness to now
search documents voluntarily turned over to the Department by Secretary Clinton
and other officials hardly transforms such a search into an “adequate” or
“reasonable one. [Judicial Watch] is not relying on “speculation” or “surmise”
as the State Department claims. [Judicial Watch] is relying on constantly
shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials.
The development comes in Judicial Watch’s July 2014
FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of
State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No.
1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:
·Copies of any updates
and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal
agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on
the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
·Any and all records or
communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates
on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any
federal agency.
This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the
disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.
In May 2016, Judicial Watch filed an initial Proposed Order for Discovery seeking
additional information. The State Department opposed Judicial Watch’s proposal,
and in December 2016 Judge Lamberth requested both parties to file new proposed
orders in light of information discovered in various venues since the previous
May.
The full transcript of the hearing is available here.
“President Trump should ask why his State Department is still refusing to
answer basic questions about the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton’s and the State Department’s email cover
up abused the FOIA, the courts, and the American people’s right to know.”
Watch additional comments from Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here.
###
Judicial Watch: FBI Documents Detail Weiner
Laptop/Clinton Email Find Just Before the 2016 Election
‘A significant number of these 340,000 emails appeared
to be between Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton …’
(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced
today that it has received 45 pages of FBI documents that reveal a
“significant number” of 340,000 emails on the laptop of disgraced former
Congressman Anthony Weiner were between the former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin.
Judicial Watch obtained the documents as the result of a September 2018 Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the Justice Department did
not act on two FOIA requests for Anthony Weiner laptop investigation documents,
including any Clinton emails found on the laptop (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.1:18-cv-02105)).
The new documents include an October 3, 2016, email to a FBI official in New York that
reads:
Just putting this on the record
because of the optics of this case.
During the course of my review of a computer seized from Anthony Weiner, a
seizure and search of which was authorized by an SDNY [Southern District of New
York] Search Warrant, I encountered approximately/at least 340,000 emails
stored on the computer. The large number of emails appears to be a result of a
mail client program installed on that computer (such as Outlook) that pulled
emails from servers belonging to both Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin.
A significant number of these 340,000 emails appeared to be between Huma Abedin
and Hillary Clinton (the latter who appears to have used a number of different
email addresses). This is based simply a review of the header information. I
did not review content of these emails, as the warrant only authorized me to
view items that would give me probable cause to believe that CP [child
pornography] evidence may reside therein.
SDNY is comfortable with me continuing my review as I have, which is to NOT
read any emails to/from Anthony Weiner to which his wife, or a possible
attorney is a party. Even if there is a third party on those emails, I will not
review their content out of an abundance of caution. Obviously, I will not
review any emails to which Anthony Weiner is not a party (such as emails
between Ms. Abedin and Mrs. Clinton). I just wanted to formally bring this to
your attention due to the pending election, the ongoing Congressional
investigation into the FBI’s own investigation into Ms. Clinton’s email
activities, etc.
The documents also include a September 29, 2016, FBI report indicating that after agents served
unidentified persons with a grand jury subpoena on September 22, “Discussions
immediately ensued between the US Attorneys’ Offices in the Southern District
of New York (SDNY) and [redacted], as well as the Department of Justice in
Washington, DC.”
RealClear Investigations’ reporter Paul Sperry reported that only 3,077 of the emails found
on the Weiner laptop “were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating
information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt
the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.”
In a related case, Judicial Watch obtained an email revealing that fired FBI official
Peter Strzok created the initial draft of the October 2016 letter then-FBI
director James Comey sent to Congress notifying lawmakers of the discovery of
Hillary Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop.
The notification to Congress, according the DOJ IG, came a full month after the emails were
discovered by the FBI on Weiner’s laptop. The delay, the IG suggests, may have
been the result of anti-Trump bias by FBI official Peter Strzok and others:
In September 2016, the FBI’s New
York Field Office (NYO) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) began investigating former Congressman Anthony
Weiner for his online relationship with a minor. A federal search warrant was
obtained on September 26, 2016, for Weiner’s iPhone, iPad, and laptop computer.
The FBI obtained these devices the same day. The search warrant authorized the
government to search for evidence relating to the following crimes:
transmitting obscene material to a minor, sexual exploitation of children, and
activities related to child pornography.
The Weiner case agent told the OIG that he began processing Weiner’s devices on
September 26, and that he noticed “within hours” that there were “over 300,000
emails on the laptop.”
***
In assessing the decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following
up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop,
we were particularly concerned about text messages sent by Strzok and Page that
potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions
they made were impacted by bias or improper considerations.
***
After October 4, we found no evidence that anyone associated with the Midyear
investigation, including the entire leadership team at FBI Headquarters, took
any action on the Weiner laptop issue until the week of October 24, and then
did so only after SDNY raised concerns about the lack of action.
“These new documents show the FBI knowingly sat on the
Clinton emails for over a month before notifying Congress,” said Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton. “And even worse, we now know the FBI didn’t even bother
to look at the emails, and then again only partially, for weeks. The Clinton
email scandal needs to be reviewed again and immediately by the Justice
Department.”
Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization. Contributionsare received from individuals, foundations, and
corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.
425 Third Street SW, Suite
800
Washington, DC 20024
888-593-8442
In Judicial Watch’s Weekly Update Tom Fitton exposes the blatant
corruption of the Deep State against President Donald Trump and his Administration.
Fitton also delves into a Federal Judge telling
the Department of Army to reconsider its refusal to award Staff Sgt.
Joshua Berry a Purple Heart for wounds received from Islamic Terrorist Nidal
Malik Hasan during the Fort Hood Massacre in 2009.
Staff Sgt. Joshua Berry –
Wounded at Ft. Hood
In case you haven’t figured it out, Deep State is simply
another name for the Democratic Party. And the Dems have string pullers largely
embodied under the auspices of former President Barack Hussein Obama. And at
the risk of sounding the Conspiracy Theorist nut, you can globalist string
pullers such as George Soros.
JRH 9/8/18 In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or despising) this Blog. Please Support SlantRight 2.0
********************
Weekly Update: Strzok Drafted Comey’s Letter to Congress
About Weiner’s Laptop
Strzok’s ‘Fingerprints’ Are on Comey’s Letter About the
Weiner Laptop
We have added two new pieces to the giant jigsaw puzzle
showing the effort to undermine President Trump. They show more of the workings
of the disgraced former FBI Director James Comey and fired FBI official Peter
Strzok.
We have released 424
pages of FBI records, including an email revealing that Strzok
created the initial draft of the October 2016 letter Comey sent to Congress
notifying lawmakers of the discovery of Hillary Clinton emails on the laptop of
disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner.
Another email suggests that the FBI had not yet completed
its review of Clinton’s emails by the time Comey sent a second
letter to Congress on November 6, 2016, reconfirming his
belief that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be charged with a crime.
The records were produced as a result of a June 2018 Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a
September 1, 2017, request (Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice(No.
1:18-cv-01448)). Judicial Watch is seeking:
1.All drafts of James Comey’s statement closing the Clinton email
investigation, from his original draft in April or May 2016 to the final
version.
2.All records of communications between or among FBI officials
regarding Comey’s draft statement closing the Clinton email investigation,
including all memoranda and/or analyses of the factual and/or legal
justification for his July 5, 2016 announcement regarding his decision not to
seek Mrs. Clinton’s prosecution.
3.All records previously provided to the Office of Special Counsel
in the course of its now-closed Hatch Act investigation of Mr. Comey.
The documents reveal that on October 27, 2016, Peter
Strzok emailedother
senior FBI officials a draft notice letter from Comey to Congress about the
Weiner laptop discovery and the reopening of the Clinton investigation. The
emails indicated that Strzok and another official Jon (Last Name Unknown)
authored the notification to Congress. The notification, according the
DOJ IG, came a full month after the emails were discovered by the
FBI on the Weiner laptop.
According to the documents, at 11:04 p.m. on Saturday,
November 5, 2016, FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki sent Comey an
email containing a redacted draft document which he referred
to as a “New Proposal” saying: “Folks, Per our 1000pm conversation, below is a
revised straw man for discussion. Again, we could use this if the review when
completed supports our conclusions. My comments again in ALL CAPS and bold
italics.”
Rybicki’s “New Proposal … straw man” apparently refers to a
draft of Comey’s letter to Congress concerning the FBI’s review of the 650,000
Clinton emails found on Weiner’s laptop. At the time of the Rybicki email,
Comey was preparing his letter informing Congress of the FBI’s findings, and
according to page
390 of the June 2018 report from the DOJ Office of the
Inspector General, the deliberations regarding the letter began on the
afternoon of November 3 and concluded “very early on November 6.”
Despite Rybicki’s email suggesting late on November 5 that
the review of the new emails had not been completed, Comey’s November 6 letter
to Congress stated, “[W]e reviewed all of the communications
that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. Based on
our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with
respect to Secretary Clinton.”
Comey’s “conclusions” in July were that no charges should be
filed against Clinton, despite her repeatedly having sent classified
information over her unsecured, non-State-Department server. Comey later
admitted that he had drafted his July exoneration more than a month earlier.
Real Clear Investigations’ reporter Paul Sperry recently
reported that “only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails [found on the
Weiner laptop] were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating
information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt
the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.”
These new documents provide more details of the corrupt and
dishonest FBI investigation of the incredible revelations that Clinton’s
classified and other emails were present on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. When will
the Sessions DOJ and Wray FBI finally begin an honest investigation of Hillary
Clinton’s national security crimes?
In a related Judicial Watch lawsuit, the State
Department told
the court in October 2017: “The State Department identified
approximately 2,800 work-related documents among the documents provided by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
Further examples of our work in this case on your behalf can
be found here.
Army Must Rethink Purple Heart for
Joshua Berry in Fort Hood Terror Attack
We’ve helped the father of a deceased Army sergeant get a
step closer to winning the recognition his son deserves for his role in a
terrorist attack within our borders.
U.S. District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper has ordered the
Army to reconsider its decision denying a Purple Heart to Sgt. Berry for
injuries sustained in the 2009 international terrorist attack at Fort Hood,
Texas.
If the Army wishes to stick with the denial, it must
sufficiently explain why Sgt.
Berry is not entitled to the Purple Heart.
On remand, the Army, assuming it
wishes to stick with its determination, must explain why Berry is not entitled
to a Purple Heart and do so with sufficient clarity that “a court can measure”
the denial “against the ‘arbitrary or capricious’ standard of the
[Administrative Procedures Act].”
On October 12, 2017, we filed a
lawsuit on behalf of Sgt. Berry’s father, Howard M. Berry, who
is challenging the Army’s denial of the Purple Heart under the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) (Howard
M. Berry v. Mark Esper, Secretary of the Army, et al. (No.
1:17-cv-02112)).
Following the Fort Hood attack, the Secretary of Defense
declined to recognize the mass shooting as an international terrorist attack
against the United States. Instead, the attack was characterized as “workplace
violence.” As a result, active duty service members injured in the attack were
ineligible for the Purple Heart, among other awards and benefits.
In response, Congress enacted legislation in 2014 mandating
that service members killed or wounded in an attack targeting members of the
armed forces and carried out by an individual in communication with and
inspired or motivated by a foreign terrorist organization be eligible for the
Purple Heart.
As a result, in 2015, the Secretary of the Army announced
that service members injured or killed in the Fort Hood attack were eligible
for the Purple Heart if they met the regulatory criteria.
The Purple Heart is not a “recommended” decoration for
soldiers killed or wounded in combat or under attack. Rather, a soldier is
entitled to a Purple Heart upon meeting specific criteria. Sgt. Berry met the
regulatory criteria for an award of the Purple Heart.
Sgt. Berry suffered a dislocated left shoulder during the
November 5, 2009, terrorist attack on Fort Hood by Maj. Nidal Hasan. Hasan, who
admitted during his 2013 court martial that he had been influenced by al Qaeda,
killed 13 people and injured 30 others.
In witness statements given to the U.S. Army Criminal
Investigative Command (“CID”) and in a separate statement given to a Texas
Ranger, Sgt. Berry had estimated that Hasan fired 30-40 rounds outside Building
42004 at Ft. Hood. Sgt. Berry told those around him to get down on the floor
and stay away from the doors and windows. When Sgt. Berry heard gunshots hit
the metal doors near him, he leaped over a desk to take cover and, in so doing,
dislocated his left shoulder. He then heard Hasan trying to kick in the doors.
According to a witness statement from another individual, Hasan fired three
rounds at the briefing room doors.
Mr. Berry applied for a posthumous award of the Purple Heart
to his son. The U.S. Army Decorations Board denied Mr. Berry’s application. In
April 2015, the Army awarded the Purple Heart to 47 service members injured in
the Fort Hood attack. Sgt. Berry was not among them.
On April 17, 2016, upon Mr. Berry’s application for review,
a three-member panel of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records
recommended that all Army records concerning Sgt. Berry be corrected to award
Sgt. Berry the Purple Heart. The panel found “[t]here is no question that [Sgt.
Berry]’s injury met the basic medical criteria for award of the [Purple
Heart].” The Board’s eight-page determination provided a detailed analysis of
“the degree to which the enemy (i.e., the terrorist) caused [Sgt. Berry’s]
injury.”
A few months later, however, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Review Boards) Francine C. Blackmon issued a single paragraph
memorandum rejecting the Corrections Board’s recommendation:
I have reviewed the findings,
conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is not sufficient
evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 1552, I
have determined that the facts do not support a conclusion that his injury met
the criteria for a Purple Heart.
In his ruling, Judge Cooper said the court could not
“meaningfully evaluate the reasoning behind” Blackmon’s decision. Decisions
which are “utterly unreviewable,” the judge added “must be vacated as arbitrary
and capricious.” Judge Cooper noted the Army’s final memorandum:
provides no meaningful
analysis—only a boilerplate determination “that the facts do not support a
conclusion that [Berry’s] injury met the criteria for a Purple Heart.” Why not?
Was there conflicting evidence regarding how immediate of a threat Hasan posed
to Berry as he sat inside the building? Was the evidence clear but the Deputy
Assistant Secretary thought that Berry could have taken cover without injuring
himself? Or did she read the regulations as categorically taking the Purple
Heart off the table for service members injured while taking cover?
The denial letter provides no
hints. In turn, the Court cannot meaningfully evaluate the reasoning behind it.
That is enough to warrant remand.
We are thrilled by the court’s ruling and hope the Army
quickly comes to its senses and finally awards Sgt. Berry a well-deserved
Purple Heart.
State Dept. Uses Outdated, Unsecure
System to Spot Visa/Passport Fraud
You will no longer wonder how Hillary Clinton got away with
using a non-government email system housed in her home basement when you read
this incredible story from
our Corruption Chronicles blog. And you’ll wonder if the
government learned anything at all from 9/11.
Though it claims the 9/11 attacks
“reenergized” its mission, the State Department branch responsible for spotting
visa and passport fraud fails to practice basic security protocols, leaving the
nation extremely vulnerable to foreign threats. To keep potential terrorists
from entering the United States, the monstrous agency with a $37 billion annual
budget uses outdated machines that are poorly monitored and fails to protect
data and perform basic security scans, according to a distressing federal
audit. The report documents the alarming inefficiencies in a
decades-old system—Bureau of Consular Affairs Fraud Prevention Program
(CA/FPP)—used by the State Department to determine if foreigners seeking U.S.
visas are being candid about their identity and where they have traveled. The
goal is to oversee and coordinate the integrity of U.S. visa and citizenship
processes by stopping fraud in the visa and passport system, a crucial tool to
protect national security.
It turns out that the State
Department’s security team is a bit of a joke, according to the incredible
lapses documented in the report, which was made public recently by the agency’s
Office of Inspector General (OIG). The team doesn’t even bother to patch the
system, scan it for computer viruses or audit for evidence of breaches or
compromises by hackers. In short, the State Department consular division
ignores basic information security practices in this essential program used to
screen potential threats. Nearly two decades after the worst terrorist attack
on American soil, this is incredibly disturbing. In fact, the report states
that “the events of September 11, 2001, reenergized CA/FPP’s mission.” Not
enough, apparently. “OIG found deficiencies that included shared passwords and
lack of access control lists or visitor logs,” the watchdog writes in its
report. In addition, the flawed system’s “security officer did not perform
regular patch management or anti-virus scanning on the network or regular audit
and accountability reviews to identify data loss or potential intruder
activities.”
It gets better, or rather, more
enraging. The OIG found that no one monitors the server and the State
Department doesn’t keep adequate logs of who accesses the information on the
database. In fact, a SharePoint site established by the agency a decade ago to
track “possible consular malfeasance” has never even been examined. Auditors
found that management was not even aware that the system had never undergone an
assessment to determine whether it contained information that exceeded
SharePoint’s security categorization. “Without applying appropriate controls,
the case management system and its information are vulnerable to unauthorized
access or compromise,” the report states. This indicates that breaches could
very well have occurred, but we’ll never know for sure thanks to the
government’s incompetence. This may seem inconceivable to most Americans as the
nation faces serious threats from radical elements.
OIG investigators gathered
mountains of evidence in the course of their probe, which considered interviews
with hundreds of State Department personnel and contractors as well as
observations of daily operations and written questionnaires. This includes 178
interviews and 224 questionnaires completed by consular officers in the field
as well as 54 filled out by agency employees and contractors domestically. The
watchdog makes a multitude of recommendations to fix this laughable “security”
system, but this very basic one sticks out: “The Bureau of Consular Affairs
should implement a website content management process for the Office of Fraud
Prevention Programs that includes a dedicated team responsible for the regular
updating of website content.” Another simple recommendation is that the State
Department’s Office of Fraud Prevention Programs implement required security
controls in accordance with federal standards. It’s troubling that the agency
watchdog has to suggest these elementary, common sense approaches to a program
that is so imperative to national security.
Then again, this is the same agency
that allowed Hillary Clinton to traffic
highly classified information on an unsecure, personal email
server. It is also the agency run by high-level officials who knewweak
security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide could result in a tragedy
like Benghazi long before Islamic jihadists raided the Special Mission, killing
four Americans.
Every big organization has IT troubles, but this ineptitude
imperils our country.
Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals,
foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by
law.
Judicial Watch, Inc., a
conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency,
accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its
educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and
morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and
judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American
people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation,
investigations, and public outreach.
The motto of Judicial Watch
is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open
records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and
uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account
politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.
Litigation and the civil
discovery process not only uncover information for the education of the
American people on anti-corruption issues, but can also provide a basis for
civil authorities to criminally prosecute corrupt officials. Judicial Watch
seeks to ensure high ethical standards in the judiciary through monitoring
activities and the use of the judicial ethics process to hold judges to
account.
Judicial Watch’s
investigation, legal, and judicial activities provide the basis for strong
educational outreach to the American people. Judicial Watch’s public education
programs include speeches, opinion editorials (op-eds), publications,
educational conferences, media outreach, radio and news television appearances,
and direct radio outreach through informational commercials and public service
announcements.
Through its Open Records
Project, Judicial Watch also provides … READ THE REST
