Month: February 2018

Comey’s FBI Was A Hotbed Of Sexual Misconduct: Official Report

Comey’s FBI Was A Hotbed Of Sexual Misconduct: Official Report

by Tyler Durden

The Department of Justice’s internal watchdog sanctioned at least 14 FBI agents and officials over the last five years – most of which occurred under Former FBI Director James Comey’s leadership, reports Richard Pollock of the Daily Callerwhich has reviewed documents from the agency’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.

he acts entail inappropriate romantic relationships with a subordinate, outright sexual harassment, favoritism or promotion based on demands for sex, and retaliation against women who rebuffed male employee’s advances.Daily Caller

rior to Comey’s tenure as Director which began in September 2013, no sexual misconduct charges had been filed by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Most recently, an extramarital relationship between FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page was revealed during Congressional investigations into the FBI, which had been uncovered by Horowitz through a search of text messages between the two agents.

As Horowitz explained in his March 2015 final report on how law enforcement agencies handle sexual-misconduct complaints, his office’s ability “to conduct this review was significantly impacted and delayed by the repeated difficulties we had in obtaining relevant information from both the FBI and DEA as we were initiating this review in mid-2013.”

After pulling teeth to try and obtain records from the FBI, Horowitz was finally presented with unredacted information that satisfied his requests – however it was “still incomplete.”

Of note, Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Comey fought Horowitz’s investigation into sexual misconduct charges.

Lynch supported Comey’s defiance of the IG via a July 20, 2015, memo from DOJ Office of Legal Counsel principal-deputy AG Karl Thompson. Thompson charged law enforcement agencies could redact information in its files and withhold information from the Inspector General. It was one of her first acts as Obama’s new Attorney General, who was sworn in to office on April 27, 2015. –DC

It was only after a multi-year battle with the Obama administration that Horowitz was finally able to obtain the information he sought after Congress passed the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, restoring his office’s ability to access information without having to ask for it first.

Of note, Horowitz’s report on FBI malfeasance during the 2016 election is due out in several weeks – which many think will provide official confirmation that the top ranks of the FBI and DOJ engaged in a highly politicized hit-job on President Trump and his team in an effort to elect Hillary Clinton while undermining Trump.

Who is Michael Horowitz? 

As we detailed in January, Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 – after the Obama administration hobbled the OIG’s investigative powers in 2011 amid the “Fast and Furious” scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright.

What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentator puts it, he went to war

In March of 2015, Horowitz’s office prepared a report for Congress  titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations. It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress – illustrating among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.

 

After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG’s investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450 – the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 – signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on December 16th, 2016cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress. 

1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and documented.

TrumpSoldier (@DaveNYviii) January 3, 2018

See here for a complete overview of the OIG’s new and restored powers. And while the public won’t get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big on public disclosure:

12) His war with the Obama Admin is a great case study in how he operates. The tactics will be the same with two highly significant differences. Public disclosure and a new administration that is not adversarial.

13) Horowitz in 2017 took his organization to a new level via public disclosure. He no longer wants his findings hidden from us by the media. In May he created the twitter account @OversightGov. On October 1st his website https://www.oversight.gov  went live. pic.twitter.com/H8MKD6WzVE

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Horowitz’s efforts to roll back Eric Holder’s restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the Inspector General’s ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, brand new FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to be on the same page as well. Click here and keep scrolling for that and more insight into what’s going on behind the scenes.

Once congress has reviewed the OIG report on the FBI’s conduct during the 2016 election, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations, which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass legislation to force an the appointment.

And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation.

As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis, the DOJ can take various actions regarding “Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded).

Back to the topic at hand, here are the 14 cases of sexual misconduct within the bureau, via the Daily Caller:

  • Tuesday the IG found that a special agent in charge (SAC) of an FBI field office, had an “inappropriate romantic relationship” with a subordinate who also was married. The SAC was married and had a young child at home, according to a source knowledgeable of the case.
  • On June 3, 2016, a  SAC retired after it was disclosed he accepted free rent and lived at the residence of a subordinate FBI special agent in violation of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, which prohibits an employee from accepting a gift from a subordinate who receives less pay and is a violation of the FBI Code of Conduct policy.
  • In August 2015, the IG reported that an FBI assistant SAC (ASAC) was temporarily demoted because he made “inappropriate comments of a sexual nature towards employees and made inappropriate physical contact with employees.” The IG interviewed several witnesses “who told the OIG that they were either inappropriately touched or that they had inappropriate comments made to them by the ASAC. Other witnesses said they observed the ASAC engage in such conduct with the employees.” The ASAC denied the allegations, and stated “he did not recall” the specific incidents. “The OIG found the witnesses’ accounts to be consistent, credible, and corroborative of each other” and that he “lacked candor” in his interview.
  • In December 2014, an ASAC was disciplined for sexually harassing an FBI employee. He admitted to engaging in several acts of sexual harassment, including sending the employee an electronic communication containing sexual innuendo and making a sexually-oriented comment at a luncheon.
  • In December 2014, an ASAC was disciplined for making unwanted sexual advances to a special agent and later removing the special agent from his assignment for refusing those advances. He also allegedly selected a replacement for the special agent based on a personal relationship with the replacement. Although the IG investigation found “no evidence” the ASAC made supervisory decisions based solely on a personal relationship, the IG “found that the ASAC’s involvement in decisions benefitting the individual created an appearance of favoritism.”
  • In June 2014, the IG reported that an FBI program analyst was dismissed. While detailed to another federal agency, he arranged for sexual encounters using his work computer. The analyst also “admitted to arranging sexual encounters by using his personal e-mail account accessed through the other agency’s network on his work computer.”
  • In June 2014, an FBI Information Technology specialist and program manager resigned after making multiple unwanted sexual advances towards an FBI contract employee while intoxicated. When the contractor reported the incident to an FBI supervisor, the IT specialist allegedly “threatened to kick the contractor and retaliate against her at work.”
  • In January 2014, the FBI issued disciplinary action against an ASAC who had sexual relationships with and sexually harassed subordinates. He created “a hostile work environment” and disregarded his supervisor’s instruction to inform him if a relationship developed with his subordinate. The FBI determined the ASAC “sexually harassed other female subordinates, had inappropriate sexual contact with two other subordinates while on duty and retaliated against a female special agent after she refused to engage in a romantic relationship with him.”
  • In January 2014, the FBI demoted a SAC who “engaged in a protracted sexual relationship with a foreign national that he deliberately concealed from the FBI.” He also “disclosed sensitive information to the foreign national,” and allowed the foreign national to use FBI-issued iPads and an FBI-issued Blackberry phones on numerous occasions. He also exchanged sexually explicit communications on the Blackberry with the foreign national.
  • In January 2014, an FBI ASAC made “unwanted sexual advances” to an FBI special agent (SA). The ASAC removed the female agent for refusing those advances. “The ASAC was further alleged to have selected a replacement for the SA based on a personal relationship with the replacement.”
  • In November 2013, an FBI Deputy Assistant Director (DAD) resigned after it was determined he was involved in a personal relationship with a direct subordinate that resulted in favoritism. The two exchanged messages on their FBI-issued Blackberry devices. The DAD “failed to disclose the relationship and recuse herself from all official decisions regarding the subordinate, as required by FBI policy, and that the relationship created perceived instances of benefit or favoritism towards the subordinate, in violation of FBI policy.”
  • In May 2013, an ASAC voluntarily removed himself from his position and was reassigned to a GS-13 position for engaging in a relationship with a subordinate employee for a lengthy period that began before and continued after the his promotion to the ASAC position. The investigation also found that the ASAC “was insubordinate by willfully ignoring a former SAC’s instruction to terminate the relationship.”
  • In February 2013, an FBI ASAC was disciplined when he engaged in a relationship with a subordinate FBI employee for a lengthy period. The investigation also found the ASAC was insubordinate by willfully ignoring a former SAC’s instruction to terminate the relationship.
  • In January 2013, an ASAC engaged in romantic relationships with approximately 17 female FBI employees, nine of whom were direct subordinates, “creating a hostile work environment.” The investigation determined the ASAC “sexually harassed other female subordinates, had inappropriate sexual contact with two other subordinates while on duty, and retaliated against a female special agent after she refused to engage in a romantic relationship with him.

Raw Water, A Silicon Valley Fad That Could Kill

You need to check this out:

You’ve probably heard of the raw milk dietary fad. Raw honey. Raw meat. If you’re a Silicon Valley executive with money flowing out of your noggin though, these fads just aren’t raw enough. There is a niche raw water seeks to fill.

“Unfiltered, untreated, unsterilized spring water” is being sold for as much as $60.99 for a 2.5-gallon jug, though each subsequent refill “only” costs $14.99, according to Business Insider.

Exorbitant price for a product that costs less to produce aside, it seems this fad might have roots in certain worries regarding the types of chemicals placed in the water supply. However, there’s no reason why filtered water should be shirked in favor of the completely untreated variety.

Remember that overpriced fresh-juice-in-a-packet fad pushed by the mainstream media and “invented” by Doug Evans, CEO of Juicero? It shut down in September last year, leaving idio- err, consumers who already bought the expensive 700 dollars “juicing” machine with a gigantic countertop wifi-connected white elephant.

Evans seems to be promoting yet another overpriced beverage, making posts on social media trumpeting his appetite for expensive unsanitized water from a company called “Live Water”. “I haven’t tasted tap water in a long time,” he told the NY Times. With the amount he squeezed from investors in his juicer, perhaps he can afford to drink liquid gold…

“Tap water? You’re drinking toilet water with birth control drugs in them,” Founder of Live Water, Mukhande Singh, added. “Chloramine, and on top of that they’re putting in fluoride. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but it’s a mind-control drug that has no benefit to our dental health.”

While fluoride does help with one’s teeth, brushing one’s teeth should provide enough to safeguard one’s teeth from decay without having to ingest the stuff. However, were that the major concern, filtered water should be a safer alternative to going completely off the grid…

Mukhande claims raw water contains probiotics that are not destroyed by the sanitization process; however, fecal bacteria seems to be just as likely to survive untreated…

“Almost everything conceivable that can make you sick can be found in water,” Marler, food-safety advocate and lawyer, told Business Insider. Untreated water can be contaminated with animal poop, spreading a variety of diseases.

“The diseases that killed our great-grandparents were completely forgotten about,” he noted. “It’s fine till some 10-year-old girl dies a horrible death from cholera in Montecito, California.”

 

Trump And Obama Brilliantly Compared; “Reason vs Treason”

The Trump Administration is being panned by leftists as politicizing the Department of Justice – like during the Obama years, it was a beacon of fairness, impartiality and a complete lack of political bias.

What a joke.

Under Barack Obama, the Department of Justice was used as a political weapon to go after enemies, support friends and manipulate the levers of government. It’s worth noting just a few of the most egregious examples of the political weaponization of the Justice Department under Barack Obama:

Back in October, we reported that the Obama Administration created a slush fund to siphon settlement money from companies found culpable in the 2008 financial collapse. That slush fund sent millions of dollars to leftist activist groups like the National Council of La Raza, the National Urban League and NeighborWorks America.

This was all done in secret, of course – or at least without consulting Congress. Three years ago, the head of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, warned the Obama Administration that they needed to disclose where the money was going, but they never did.

Back in 2012, after George Zimmerman fatally shot Tayvon Martin in Florida, the Community Relations Service (CRS), a unit of DOJ, deployed to Sanford, “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting,” according to DOJ documents obtained by Judicial Watch.

The rally featured prominent racial provocateur Rev. Al Sharpton as a speaker. The unit “was in Florida as part of their mandated mission,” a CRS spokeswoman told The Daily Caller. The mission is to serve as a “‘peacemaker’ for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and national origin,” according to department’s website.

Fast and Furious

The DOJ gave guns to Mexican cartel members in the hopes of tracking the guns higher up the chain. When the operation went awry, as it was destined to, the DOJ engaged in a cover-up. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ effort backfired when authorities lost track of 1,000 firearms they allowed straw buyers to take across the border.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder was cited for contempt of Congress after Obama asserted executive privilege to avoid turning over the documents, which Congress sought to explain why the DOJ decided to withdraw as inaccurate in a February 2011 letter. The letter claimed top officials were unaware of the operation until long after its conclusion.

We have the The Tarmac Meeting

Former President Bill Clinton’s meeting with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the summer of 2016 on the Phoenix airport tarmac was as shady as it got.

Former FBI Director James Comey testified in June 2017 that the ethically dubious meeting forced him to hold an independent press conference announcing Clinton’s use of a private email server was “extremely careless,” but decided against recommending charges. He further testified that Lynch asked him to refer to the investigation as a “matter,” so as to downplay its significance — a request Comey admitted made him feel “queasy.”

We have Interference with State Voter Laws

Under Barack Obama, the DOJ spent most of a decade fighting voter ID laws in Texas. After the Supreme Court weakened the Voter Rights Act in 2013, Texas moved ahead to implement their own law.

This prompted the Obama DOJ to issue a legal challenge on a basis the law was intended to disenfranchise racial minorities. Holder’s opposition to the High Court’s ruling drew intense criticism from Republican lawmakers and governors who argued the move represented an affront to the Constitution.

“This end run around the Supreme Court undermines the will of the people of Texas, and casts unfair aspersions on our state’s common-sense efforts to preserve the integrity of our elections process,” former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, said in a statement.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below.

 

Muslim Was Paid Nearly $2,250,000

For Fake Abuse Claims Against Troops In Iraq

This is why we see so many “anti-Muslim hate crimes” faked by Muslims in the U.S. and the West in general: becoming a victim brings one laudatory press attention, and in many cases money and special favors.

Al-Sadoon said: “It was all about money – people exaggerating sometimes what they see.’ He blamed the British legal system ‘for making it so easy.’”

Indeed. British authorities, primed with endless victimhood posturing by Muslims in Britain, were ready and willing to see British troops in Iraq as abusive, racist, “Islamophobic” louts, and eager to pay for such stories.

This is why we see so many “anti-Muslim hate crimes” faked by Muslims in the U.S. and the West in general: becoming a victim brings one laudatory press attention, and in many cases money and special favors.

It was a racket, all of it” indeed.

Go and read the full story here: Daily Mail

 

 

 

 

 

 

“‘It was a racket, all of it’: Iraqi refugee admits faking hundreds of compensation claims against British troops while working for man paid £1.6m by law firm,” by Miles Dilworth, Daily Mail, February 14, 2018 (thanks to David):

 

Forget the Media Caricature.

Here’s What I Believe I support U.S. generosity, decentralized power, evidence-based science, and open discourse.

Over the past 18 months, I have been the subject of intense speculation and public scrutiny, in large part because of the philanthropic investments of the Mercer Family Foundation and the political contributions made by my father and me. I don’t seek attention for myself and much prefer to keep a low profile. But my natural reluctance to speak with reporters has left me vulnerable to the media’s sensational fantasies.

Some have recklessly described me as supporting toxic ideologies such as racism and anti-Semitism. More recently I have been accused of being “anti-science.” These absurd smears have inspired a few gullible, but vicious, characters to make credible death threats against my family and me.

Last month a writer for the Financial Times suggested mysteriously that my “political goals are something she has never publicly defined.” In broad strokes this is what I believe:

I believe in a kind and generous United States, where the hungry are fed, the sick are cared for, and the homeless are sheltered. All American citizens deserve equality and fairness before the law. All people should be treated with dignity and compassion. I support a United States that welcomes immigrants and refugees to apply for entry and ultimately citizenship. I reject as venomous and ignorant any discrimination based on race, gender, creed, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

As a federalist, I believe that power should be decentralized, with those wielding it closely accountable to the people they serve. There is obviously a role for the federal government. But I support a framework within which citizens from smaller political entities—states, counties, cities, towns and so on—can determine the majority of the laws that will govern them. Society’s problems will never be solved by expensive, ineffective and inflexible federal programs.

Forget the Media Caricature. Here’s What I Believe
Photo: iStock/Getty Images

I am deeply committed to research and the scientific method. I have degrees from Stanford in biology, mathematics, and operations research and engineering economic systems. I believe that genuine scientific discovery flourishes only in an atmosphere of dispassionate, open-minded inquiry, with research evaluated according to neutral, evidence-based criteria. I oppose politicized science, in which researchers cannot study certain subjects—or even ask certain questions—for fear of career-ending backlash and persecution.

These beliefs shape my philanthropy and my political activity. I support ideas and policies, not individual politicians as people. The only thing I ask of the politicians I back is that they be true to the promises that they made to their constituents during their campaigns.

I supported Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign because he promised to tackle entrenched corruption on both sides of the aisle. I continue to support President Trump, which does not mean I agree with every position he has taken or every thought he has tweeted. I remain hopeful that he will continue striving to fulfill his campaign promises.

I own a minority stake in Breitbart News (where I have no editorial authority) because I believe it adds an important journalistic voice to the American conversation. Stephen Bannon, its former chairman, took Breitbart in the wrong direction. Now that Mr. Bannon has resigned, Breitbart has the opportunity to refine its message and expand its influence.

I have chosen to involve myself with important policy issues, and with some of the institutions that discuss them, because I am, first and foremost, a mother. I am raising my children to be humble, productive citizens who will treat all people with dignity, respect and empathy. I want them to accept personal responsibility and to be aware that they alone will have to answer for their choices and actions. I hope that my children will show stoicism and perseverance through adversity, as well as an ability to think for themselves and challenge conventional wisdom when necessary.

I also hope that they will embrace debate as a vital part of human progress. I am devoted to protecting individual rights to ensure that my children will mature in a country where they cannot be persecuted or imprisoned or have their livelihoods destroyed because of their thoughts and beliefs.

This country was founded on the principle of open discourse. Intellectual diversity and vigorous, reasoned debate have been fundamental to America’s success, making us the freest, most prosperous and most innovative society in human history. But we have lost our way. As my family and I know firsthand, America is now a society that threatens, pillories, and harms those who dare to question the status quo.

But questioning the status quo is more important now than ever. America’s future depends on it.

Ms. Mercer is president of the New York-based Mercer Family Foundation.

Appeared in the February 15, 2018, print edition.