FBI Agents Hide Their Messages From Oversight--Illegal

New FBI messages reveal agents sought way to evade federal record requirements

BY SHARYL ATTKISSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/01/18 02:10 PM EST 0

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

26

© UPI Photo

There’s an important but little-noticed subtext in the revelations about alleged FBI misconduct in the investigations into Hillary Clinton’s email practices and Donald Trump’s Russia associations. 

It’s the light they shine on what has come to be routine obstruction of public records laws by federal officials.

The records that federal agencies generate while in our employ aren’t owned by faceless bureaucrats or political officials who can choose to withhold or disclose at their discretion and convenience. The records are owned by us: the public.

That includes text messages.

In the past two decades as communications via email, smart phones and social media have grown routine, there’s evidence that federal officials have consciously devised ways to thwart public records laws and keep their communications — our records — secret. Federal officials have used private email accounts, private servers and aliases (not their own name) for public business. They have deleted or lost messages that are supposed to be saved. 

And they have learned to use text messaging.  

In a new exchange released by the Senate Homeland Security committee today, FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok seem to discuss this very issue in private texts.

Page: Have a meeting with turgal about getting iphone in a day or so

Strzok: Oh hot damn. . . We get around our security/monitoring issues?

Page: No, he’s proposing that we just stop following them.  Apparently the requirement to capture texts came from [Office of Management and Budget], but we’re the only org (I’m told) who is following that rule.  His point is, if no one else is doing it why should we. . .  I’m told – thought I have seen – that there is an IG report that says everyone is failing.  But one has changed anything, so why not just join in the failure.

It’s a shockingly cavalier attitude from an attorney and high level FBI official. 

There are more text messages between Strzok and Page from a critical time period, as we now know, that the FBI claimed had been lost in a technical glitch. After that became public, the Inspector General said he was able to recover them. (Interesting that the FBI couldn’t.)

Where are all those text messages now? Instead of providing them directly to Congress, the Inspector General is giving the recovered text messages to the Department of Justice which then can give them to Congress (after any bad actors theoretically implicated in the texts have time to mount a fulsome defense).

This is just one artery of a huge problem that also includes federal agencies routinely violating Freedom of Information Act law. They’ve twisted the law on its head, using it to obstruct and delay the release of obviously public information. They filter legitimate public records through political reviews before releasing them in a process that isn’t, in my view, allowed under Freedom of Information law. 

Documents released years after they should have been, when the news related to them had died down, reveal that during the Department of Justice’s Fast and Furious scandal—where federal agents were instructed to allow thousands of weapons to be trafficked to Mexican drug cartels—public records officials were told to forward any Freedom of Information Act requests that I made to a special tasker under the guise of “coordination.” 

“Recently requests have been made to multiple components for certain records pertaining to Project Gunrunner, an ATF initiative,” a Department of Justice information official wrote to various agencies and officials on May 20, 2011, including DEA, the Attorney General’s office, the Marshal’s Service, the FBI and the Inspector General. “You should contact me directly before proceeding, and as soon as possible…Similarly, you should contact me if you receive a request from Sharyl Attkisson.” 

Indeed, this process ensured that I did not receive lawful responses to Freedom of Information requests on Fast and Furious.

This sort of toying with public records is, in my view, one of the worst modern violations of the public trust by our government. The newly-released text messages further that view, but there appears to be no serious effort to remedy it.

Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) is an Emmy-award winning investigative journalist, author of The New York Times bestsellers “The Smear” and “Stonewalled,” and host of Sinclair’s Sunday TV program “Full Measure.”

This Is The First Of Many ACLU Attacks

The ACLU Has Filed Its First Legal Action Against President Trump

 January 22, 2017  280 Comments

Photo by scottfeldstein 

(GOOD Magazine) On Friday, January 20, the United States awoke to the inauguration of our next president, Donald J. Trump. At high noon, Trump—a man who has polarized the nation over the last 18 months—was officially sworn in. But before he placed his hand on the bible to swear to God above, before he walked out at the Lincoln Memorial, and quite possibly before he even got out of bed, the American Civil Liberties Union had already filed its first legal action against the man who will hold the highest office in the land for at least the next four years.

“The ACLU is demanding access to key documents concerning Trump’s conflicts of interest. The public has a right to know—and we need your help to make sure we get the full story,” the union said in a statement.

The statement additionally reads:

“The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Office of Government Ethics and three other government offices. FOIA is a crucial tool for ordinary Americans to provide checks and balances on elected officials—this won’t be our last one.”

For context, a Freedom of Information Act is a law giving all citizens the right to access information from the federal government. Meaning anyone can file, and everyone has the right to ask…

Original Source

When Law Enforcement Does Illegal Things, Can Terror Be Far Away?

With no oversight, FBI agents collected American cell phone data by air

Posted on March 10, 2016 by Electronic Frontier Foundation

EFF recently received records in response to our Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Justice for information on how the U.S. Marshals — and perhaps other agencies — have been flying small, fixed-wing Cessna planes equipped with “dirtboxes”: IMSI catchers that imitate cell towers and are able to capture the locational data of tens of thousands of cell phones during a single flight. The records we received confirm the agencies were using these invasive surveillance tools with little oversight or legal guidance.

The Wall Street Journal revealed that the Marshals have been flying planes using DRT’s Stingray-like technology since 2007. The planes reportedly were based out of five metropolitan airports and shared by multiple agencies within the DOJ, even as sources within the agency questioned the legality of the program. A follow-up articlereported that the CIA provided cell phone tracking equipment to the Marshals and then spent years helping them develop and test this capability for use in a law enforcement capacity within the United States.

After months of stalling, the government finally produced records from agencies including the Marshals, the FBI, and the DOJ’s Criminal Division, which oversees federal criminal prosecutions. The documents we’ve received—many with extensive redactions—are allavailable here.

The FBI produced the majority of the records—hundreds of pages of heavily redacted material. The documents are mostly internal emails and presentations going as far back as 2009, including discussions between FBI lawyers and the Operational Technology Division (OTD), which develops and oversees the FBI’s surveillance techniques. The documents paint a picture that is similar to the one that has emerged around stingrays and IMSI catchers more generally: the FBI began testing and then using dirtboxes on planes without any overarching policy or legal guidance on their place in investigations.

This is best seen in a series of emails from June 2014, showing FBI lawyers really had no idea what agents at the Bureau were doing with this surveillance equipment. FBI lawyers prepared a briefing for senators who demanded more information regarding an Associated Press report about the FBI’s use of aircraft fitted with a wide range of surveillance equipment, including IMSI catchers. Lacking any comprehensive information, the OTD reached out to other branches of the Bureau to document “CSS (cell site simulator) aerial missions.” Ultimately, an OTD Special Supervisory Agent reported only five such missions, but that came with some major caveats:

Notably, these missions were carried using equipment owned by the FBI, not the Marshals.

Although the FBI’s “first successful airborne geolocation mission involving cellular technology” apparently occurred sometime in 2009, even as late as April 2014 lawyers from the FBI’s Office of General Counsel were discussing the need to develop a “coordinated policy” and “determine any legal concerns”.

As we’ve written about extensively, the government long took the position that using IMSI catchers did not require a warrant, instead relying on a lesser legal standard. Last fall, the DOJ voluntarily changed position and required a warrant for the use of cell site simulators, although the policy leaves some major loopholes, and it could be undone by the next administration. Thus, it’s not surprising that the FBI seems to have put the cart before the horse and used its nifty flying Stingrays without deliberating too deeply about the wisdom of doing so.

Given the level of detail in the original news reports about the Marshals’ use of dirtboxes, we’d expected to receive lots of FOIA documents from the agency. Not so. Instead, we got a single policy document from the Marshals’ Technical Operations Group (TOG) that discusses the TOG’s organization and procedures. There are scattered references to aerial surveillance and the use of cell site simulators, but nothing that documents the Marshals’ years of dirtbox use. While it certainly wouldn’t be the first time law enforcement agencies operated surveillance equipment without much oversight or documentation, it’s very hard to believe the operations described in the press would not have generated a bigger paper trail—contracts, purchase orders, contracts, legal memoranda, and so on. We asked for these documents in our FOIA request, and we’ll be arguing that the Marshals Service didn’t follow the law when it responded with this single document.

We’re sure there’s more to be gleaned from these documents, so we encourage you to look through the documents and see what you find. And, of course, we’ll be hoping to force more transparency when we challenge the government’s redactions in court later this spring.

Maybe We Are Looking At Obama's Golf The Wrong Way. We Should Encourage More Time On The Links, It Keeps Him From Sending Out Presidential Directives! Probably Saves Us Money In The Short And Long Term!

Judicial Watch: Obama Golf, Fundraising Trips Cost $4.4 Million

(Photo by Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images)

By Greg Richter   |   Thursday, 15 Oct 2015 04:47 PM

Short URL|

Email Article|

Comment|

Contact|

Print|

    A   A

• 0
  inShare

President Barack Obama's golf outings and fundraising trips in February and March of this year cost taxpayers $4.4 million, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch.

Citing Air Force records received through two Freedom of Information Act requests, Judicial Watch reported on four trips taken by Obama. The Secret Service has not responded to FOIA requests about the costs of security on the trips, the group said.

"Taxpayers should be outraged that Barack Obama wastes $4.4 million of their precious tax dollars on golf vacations and political fundraising," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. 

"And to make matters worse, the Secret Service has simply refused to respond to our requests for documents about the security costs of these controversial trips. The Obama travel scandal is about abuse of office, abuse of the taxpayer, and contempt for the rule of law."

Judicial Watch used the Air Force's official cost estimate of $206,337 per hour to fly the president in Air Force One. Based on those numbers, the group determined:
 

• Obama's February 14 golf outing to Palm Springs, California required a five-hour flight, costing taxpayers $1.03 million.

• Transportation for Obama's February 19 day trip to Chicago cost taxpayers $619,011.

• Transportation for Obama's March fundraising trip to Los Angeles cost taxpayers $1.98 million.

• Obama's March 28 golf outing to Palm City, Florida required a 3.9-hour flight, costing taxpayers $804,870.30.

On the Palm Springs trip, Obama played at the Sunnylands country club on the former estate of the late ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg and stayed over the weekend in the gated community.

Latest News Update

Get Newsmax TV At Home »

The Chicago trip was billed as nonpolitical, Judicial Watch said, but noted that a CNN story on the trip showed otherwise, with Obama stopping at a re-election campaign office for his former chief of staff Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

The Los Angeles trip was for no other purpose than raising money for the Democratic National Committee and to support Democrats nationally.

The Florida trip was a golf outing at the Floridian National Golf Club, where members pay a $50,000 initiation fee and $15,000 in annual dues.

Judicial Watch previously reported that Michelle Obama's 2014 China trip to China cost more than $360,000 for air transportation and that trips by both Obama to Africa and Honolulu cost taxpayers $15.9 million in flight expenses.

According to Judicial Watch the total known travel expenses of the Obamas and Vice President Joe Biden are more than $61 million.

Related Stories:

• Judicial Watch Wants Top State Dept. Official to Testify on Hillary Emails
• Judicial Watch Sues IRS Over Lois Lerner Records

© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

When The President Exempts Himself And The White House From The Freedom Of Information Act, You Know He Is Hiding Something!

The Last Two Years of the Obama Administration Will Be a Nightmare. Here’s One Reason Why

Green on the outside, red on the inside.

by
Michael Walsh

Bio

March 18, 2015 - 7:14 am

(224)  

 

Starting with the rise of the Watermelon Men: green on the outside, red on the inside — phony “climate change” concern trolls whose ostensible “enivronmentalism” masks the socialist, civilization-destroying agenda within:

 President Barack Obama is quietly but steadily working behind the scenes on what could become one of his signature achievements: A global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

What he’s seeking out of the December U.N. climate talks in Paris would create the broadest, farthest-reaching deal in history, reworking environmental regulations for governments and corporations around the world and creating a framework for global green policy for decades.Republicans in Congress, sensing what he’s up to, are already saying no. And Obama’s already preparing to sign on without them.

Well, of course he is — that’s how Obama rolls. No Congress, no problem!

Which is why, even though reaching a climate change pact has become a top priority for the West Wing and part of nearly every conversation Obama has recently had with a foreign leader, Obama and his aides aren’t advertising it.

No kidding! This is the “transparent” White House that just informed the country that its machinations would no longer be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Barry wants to pull off another unilateral policy coup without those pesky Republicans in Congress, whatever that is. But hey — we knew this was coming. Most presidents feel chastened after leading their party to two catastrophic off-year losses in Congress and in the statehouses. But not Barry Hussein; he made it clear right after the results were announced in November that he had no intention of hondling with Senate or the House about anything.

All the same, a global climate accord is what last November’s greenhouse gas agreement with China was leading up to. That’s what a big focus of his talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in New Delhi in January. And that’s why aides have been traveling to Lima, Bonn and Geneva, setting the terms for a deal that’s far bigger than the one Obama unenthusiastically committed to in 2009 in Copenhagen.

Since the Paris agreement would be voluntary and not a formal treaty, it’s seen as much more likely to get support around the world. And it can happen without the Senate taking any kind of vote on it.

Isn’t Caesarism wonderful? Good thing we have GOP majorities in both houses to check it.

Read more: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/18/the-last-two-years-of-the-obama-administration-will-be-a-nightmare-heres-one-reason-why/#ixzz3UrzQV6ew

Could The CIA Had Prisoners At Benghazi? Is That The Reason For The Attack?

BOMBSHELL: Leaked Pentagon Docs Expose What Obama Was Secretly Doing in Benghazi

Barack Obama has repeatedly declined to answer just why the Benghazi consulate was such a target. Now, we may have an answer.

Conservative activist group Judicial Watch recently obtained documents which claim that the Obama administration may have been operating a secret detention facility at the American embassy in the Libyan city.

The Department of Defense documents, which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, had one specific page — numbered “AFRICOM 87″ — which had instructions for soldiers working on the Benghazi operation post-attack.

According to WND, it read, “Transport of non-DOD passengers, detainees, and/or and (sic) cargo on DOD-owned or operated lift is not authorized without review and coordination by the HQ USAFRICOM Deployment and Distribution Center (ADDOC), IAW Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements (ACSA) and/or other authorities.”

While the document did not specify who the detainees might be or where they might be located, there were some signs that the detainees were held in the Benghazi compound.

For instance, a 2012 Fox News report claimed that “there were Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and annex that night.”

“There were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack,” a Fox News source said.

“Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.”

On the same day, author Paula Broadwell said that she had information of prisoners in the Benghazi compound.

Broadwell — best known as former General David Petraeus’ mistress — told a University of Denver audience, “Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya militia members prisoner.

“And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”

The video was immediately taken down after it began getting media notice, although the university was forced to put it back up after media inquiries.

It would be a sad irony if the president who based so much of his rhetoric on the black site detentions ofPresident Bush was operating a black site of his own which led to a major terrorist attack.

However, we know the president is hiding something, and it’s time to let the American people know what it is.

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you agree President Obama needs to come clean on the Benghazi scandal.