US

What happened to all of the secrets President Trump ordered to be declassified?

You may be wondering what became of President Trump's effort to declassify a bunch of documents that could make certain figures in the intelligence community look bad regarding the Trump-Russia probe.

According to an investigation by RealClearInvestigations, there's stonewalling in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

Sources who spoke to RealClearInvestigations blamed "establishment" officials who are dragging their feet, even after a shakeup including resignations of DNI director Dan Coats and his top deputy Sue Gordon.

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Some of the material still being withheld, according to RealClearInvestigations, includes:

Evidence that President Obama’s CIA, FBI, and Justice Department illegally eavesdropped on the Trump campaign --- cases separate from the FBI’s disputed FISA court-approved surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

An August 2016 briefing CIA Director John Brennan hand-delivered in a sealed envelope to Obama, containing information from what Brennan claimed was "a critical informant close to Putin." The informant is believed to have actually been a Russian source recycled from the largely debunked dossier compiled by ex-British agent Christopher Steele for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

An email exchange from December 2016 between Brennan and FBI Director James Comey, in which Brennan is said to have argued for using the dossier in early drafts of the task force’s much-hyped January 2017 intelligence assessment. That spread the narrative that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the alleged Clinton campaign hacking to steal the election for Trump.

John Brennan, former CIA Director and Homeland Security Adviser

According to RealClearInvestigations, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) of the Senate Judiciary Committee was so furious with Coats for refusing to share information he sought for his investigation of the origins of the Russia “collusion” probe that he put a confirmation hold on an intelligence community nominee. "He accused the intelligence czar of attempting to “hide documents” — including ones related to Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, who operated as a conduit between Steele and the FBI -- and he complained about it in a letter to Trump earlier this year."

Read more at RealClearInvestigations by clicking the link below:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/08/28/top_us_intel_office_dragging_feet_on_russiagate_files_for_trump_insiders_say_120135.html

Support the fight against government overreach in Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions.
Thanks to the thousands who have already supported!

10 things James Comey did wrong, according to the Inspector General

The following is an excerpt of an article from The Hill. You can read the full post by clicking here.

In July 2017, the Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) began an investigation into whether former FBI Director James Comey had improperly handled and shared government memos, including some containing classified information.

In a report issued last week, the IG revealed its investigation found Comey guilty of multiple violations, and referred him for possible prosecution. The Justice Department declined to prosecute Comey.

After the IG report was issued, Comey declared exoneration and asked for apologies via Twitter:

DOJ IG "found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media." I don’t need a public apology from those who defamed me, but a quick message with a “sorry we lied about you” would be nice.
— James Comey (@Comey) August 29, 2019

However, almost the entirety of the IG report consists of harsh criticism and denouncements of Comey’s violations of Justice Department, Intelligence Community and FBI policies, an Executive Order, and his FBI Employment Agreement.

So what did Comey really do wrong, according to the IG?

1. Outside of the FBI office, including at his home, Comey improperly used his personal safe and personal devices-- including his laptop and printer-- to create, revise, store and transmit memos about his conversations with President Trump.

2. These memos are government documents that belong to the public and require special handling. Some contained classified information. Comey improperly treated them as if they were personal memos.

3. Comey used his personal devices even though the FBI had outfitted his home with a secure, controlled access room-- a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility)-- designed for such purposes. The SCIF at Comey’s home contained a secure printer and a safe.

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

When asked why he failed to use the SCIF the FBI had installed in his home, Comey told the IG he “wasn't thinking about [the memos]...[belonging to the] Government—[he] thought...this is for me” so he used his “personal unclass system.” Comey also described the SCIF as a “sweat box” and a “very, very small” windowless closet in his basement where it “was always about 110 degrees.”

The IG said Comey never told anyone he considered his memos about President Trump to be his personal property rather than government documents until the IG questioned him about the violations.

The IG found Comey’s argument that the memos were “personal records” to be “not reasonable” given statements he had made to the IG and others recognizing they were work-related, and given the “clarity of relevant provisions of law, policies, and Comey’s Employment Agreement.”

4. Despite knowing at the time that at least one memo contained classified information, Comey did not appropriately mark it with classification banners, portion markings, or a classification authority block. This violated an Executive Order as well as policies of the Intelligence Community, Justice Department and FBI.

5. When President Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017, Comey failed to follow requirements to surrender the FBI documents stored in his personal home safe and did not tell the FBI about them.

We found it particularly concerning that Comey did not tell anyone from the FBI that he had retained copies of the Memos in his personal safe at home, even when his Chief of Staff, the FBI's Associate Deputy Director, and three [Supervisory Special Agents] came to Comey’s house on May 12, 2017, to inventory and remove all FBI property.
Dept. of Justice Inspector General report, Aug. 2019

6. The IG found Comey committed multiple violations by releasing the government memos to third parties without required authorizations.

After he was fired, Comey improperly transmitted 12 copies of the memos to his personal attorneys (four memos to each of three lawyers).

7. Comey also gave a copy of one memo to his friend, Columbia law school professor Daniel Richman, with instructions for Richman to leak the information to the New York Times in order to achieve Comey’s stated, personal, political goal: appointment of a special counsel to investigate Trump-Russia collusion and obstruction of justice allegations.

8. After Comey was fired, FBI officials handling his departure obtained copies of the memos from FBI offices where Comey had distributed and stored them. These FBI officials did not know Comey retained some copies in his home safe. They also did not know he had leaked to the New York times, or given copies to his personal attorneys.

On June 7, 2017, the FBI gave Comey copies of all the memos to review before he testified about them to Congress. During this review, Comey saw markings indicating the FBI had classified additional material in one of his memos. However, Comey failed to alert the FBI that he had given copies of it to his personal attorneys.

9. On June 8, 2017, the FBI learned that Comey had shared with the New York Times-- through an intermediary-- the contents of one memo when he admitted it in Congressional testimony.

Comey told the IG he believed his leak to the New York Times would “change the game” by creating “extraordinary pressure on the leadership of the Department of Justice, which [Comey did] not trust,” to appoint a Special Counsel.

The IG found that Comey’s leak to the New York Times “made public sensitive investigative information related to an ongoing FBI investigation.”

Members of Comey’s senior leadership team used the adjectives “surprised,” “stunned,” “shocked,” and “disappointment” to describe their reactions to learning that Comey acted on his own to provide the contents of Memo 4, through Richman, to a reporter. The unauthorized disclosure of this information—information that Comey knew only by virtue of his position as FBI Director—violated the terms of his FBI Employment Agreement and the FBI's Prepublication Review Policy.
Dept. of Justice Inspector General report, Aug. 2019

10. Comey was not fully forthright in his Congressional testimony on June 8, 2017. Although he admitted the New York Times leak, he omitted that he had also transmitted 12 additional copies to his personal attorneys without the required authorization. The FBI only learned this information when officials talked to Richman.

“By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.”
Dept. of Justice Inspector General report, Aug. 2019

What is Comey’s response?

Comey told the IG he was compelled to take the actions he took “if I love this country...and I love the Department of Justice, and I love the FBI.”

Comey also said he believed that he was “uniquely situated” to leak the information to the New York Times as a private citizen, but that he chose to do this through an intermediary— Richman— because he did not want to respond to follow up questions from reporters.

The IG concluded that if current or former FBI employees were to follow Comey's example and disclose sensitive information in service of their own strongly held personal convictions, the FBI would be unable to dispatch its law enforcement duties.

Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure. What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.
Dept. of Justice Inspector General report, Aug. 2019

Read the IG report by clicking the link below:

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o1902.pdf

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Sharyl Attkisson's upcoming appearance at New York Paley Center on media bias panel

The Paley Center for Media, photo by Ajay Suresh

Sharyl Attkisson will appear as part of a special panel discussion at the Paley Center in New York entitled "Media Bias: Fact or Fiction?"

Watch live at 6:30p Tues. Sept. 17 here: https://www.facebook.com/PaleyCenter/

The James P. Jimirro Media Impact Series casts light on the role of media in influencing public thought and behavior. Designed to reach media professionals, students, and the public at large, the series encourages careful consideration of media’s impact on society and, accordingly, fosters more critical viewers and readers.

Other panelists include Angelo Carusone, President, Media Matters; Tim Graham, Director of Media Analysis, Media Research Center; Michelle Malkin, Fox News contributor and author, Open Borders, Inc.; Christine Quinn, President & CEO, Win; Brian Stelter, host, CNN Reliable Sources: and moderator Dean Marie Hardin, Bellisario College of Communications, Penn State School of Journalism.

The panel will address misinformation in the media, the public's relationship with the media, and the media's impact on society today.

Purchase tickets or learn more by clicking here.

More information, including how to purchase tickets, is available here: Media bias, fact or fiction?

**Fight improper government surveillance**. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Court throws out conviction against illegal immigrant who killed Kate Steinle

Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate, illegal immigrant who accidentally shot Kate Steinle

The sole conviction against the illegal immigrant who shot and killed California resident Kate Steinle, 32, has been tossed out.

Steinle was shot in 2015 in San Francisco. San Francisco is one of dozens of U.S. "sanctuary cities" that protect illegal immigrants from deportation. The shooter, a homeless Mexican man named Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate, had been deported to Mexico five times prior to the shooting and was in the U.S. illegally when he killed Steinle.

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Garcia-Zarate said he unknowingly picked up the gun wrapped in a T-shirt, and that it went off accidentally. A jury found him not guilty of murder charges in 2017 and convicted him on one count of being felon in possession of a firearm.

However, on Friday, an appeals court in San Francisco said the trial judge erred in failing to give the jury the option of finding Garcia-Zarate not guilty because he possessed the weapon only for a short time.

Even with the lone conviction thrown out, Garcia-Zarate is not a free man. He faced federal charges of gun possession and being in the U.S. illegally.

According to Garcia-Zarate's attorney, the federal trial is scheduled to begin January 13. Lawyer Tony Serra is quoted as telling Associated Press that Friday's court decision will also give state prosecutors the chance to try Garcia-Zarate again for Steinle's death, if they choose.

That kind of error causes reversals all the time. Then the prosecution has the prerogative of going again. The state case is a heavier case because it's a homicide and a gun. ... It's going to be a big potential decision on what they're going to do.
Tony Serra, attorney for illegal immigrant Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate

According to Fox News: "Three months before the killing, Garcia-Zarate was released from custody after a drug case against him was dropped. The sheriff’s office, which had ended contact between jail employees and immigration officials, ignored a request by federal authorities to hold Garcia-Zarate until they could assume custody and did not inform them that he was being released."

Meantime, an appeals court already denied Steinle's parents the chance to pursue a wrongful death lawsuit against San Francisco.

D.C. Judge won't speed up Democrats' lawsuit to get Trump's tax returns

This week, a federal judge denied two requests made by House Democrats involving President Trump's tax returns. That's according to Politico.

"D.C. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden denied their request to both expedite consideration of the case and to decide on its merits without holding a trial," reported the website.

This is no ordinary case, but the weighty constitutional issues and political ramifications it presents militate in favor of caution and deliberation, not haste. This case presents novel and complex questions about the privileges and authority of all three branches of the federal government.”
D.C. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden

Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), head of the House Ways and Means Committee, is suing to try to obtain six years of Trump’s personal federal tax returns and some of his business filings, according to Politico.

Read the Politico story by clicking here.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/29/judge-lawsuit-trump-tax-returns-1696419

Special prosecutor to investigate handling of Smollett case involving allegedly faked racial claims

A judge has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate "the actions of any person or office involved in all aspects of" the Jussie Smollett case.

Smollett, an actor, alleged on January 29 that white Trump supporters ambushed him, beat him up, and put a noose around his neck.

The following month, Smollett was indicted for allegedly paying two African American acquaintances of his to stage the fake hate crime assault.

In March, Chicago prosecutors agreed to drop all charges in return for Smollett performing community service and giving up his $10,000 bond.

The FBI announced it would investigate why Chicago prosecutor Kim Foxx dismissed the charges and who might have influenced that decision.

Now, a special prosecutor, Chicago attorney Dan Webb, is also looking into that process.

Meantime, Smollett has reportedly doubled down, insisting that every "iota" of his story is true. And Foxx has said she will cooperate with the new investigation.

The following is an excerpt from an editorial about the case in the Chicago Tribune:

What began as an accusation that Jussie Smollett faked a vicious hate crime has evolved into something more: widespread local and national suspicion that someone, or several someones, improperly influenced how the office of Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx prosecuted, then dropped, the criminal case against the actor.

Judge Michael Toomin has appointed a special prosecutor, Chicago attorney Dan Webb, to investigate ― Toomin’s phrase ― the actions of any person or office involved in all aspects of the case. (Continued...)

Read the Chicago Tribune article by clicking the link below:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-editorial-voices-kim-foxx-jussie-smollett-webb-dan-prosecutor-20190826-iv6chdhxgjbshngnu5xyedoxuy-story.html

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

Federal judge tosses illegal immigrant's claim

A federal judge has thrown out an illegal immigrant's claim that a Virginia sheriff violated his constitutional rights.

According to an article in The Epoch Times, Francisco Guardado Rios--the illegal immigrant-- filed a class action suit alleging his rights were violated when the sheriff detained him at the request of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after his arrest two years ago.

The arrest was for driving without a license and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

I am pleased that this lawsuit seeking preferential treatment for criminal illegal aliens within our justice system has been dismissed.
Scott Jenkins, Culpeper County, Virginia, Sheriff, to The Epoch Times

Read the article by clicking the link below:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-throws-out-suit-against-sheriff-over-immigration-detentions_3048221.html

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Newly-released Fast and Furious documents (...still keeping government secrets)

Fast and Furious docs still REDACTED after all these years

Today, I received several pages of documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal where the Obama Administration secretly facilitated the delivery of assault rifles and other weapons to Mexican drug cartels.

Attkisson's Fast and Furious story links

I requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) back in 2013. This response took almost six years, even though-- under FOI law-- it was due in 30 days.

Obviously, the way the federal government complies with FOI law (or, more accurately, fails to comply), it becomes impossible for journalists to receive publicly-owned documents to use in relevant news stories.

The pages returned to me today are not enlightening. Some of them are emails from Fall of 2010 referring to a planned meeting in Mexico that included officials from the U.S. Department of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

The bulk of the editorial content in the emails is blacked out. The reason given for many of the redactions is the so-called (b)(5) exemption. It says the government can withhold "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency."

The 2010 meeting in Mexico would have occurred as Fast and Furious and other "gunwalking" operations secretly conducted by the federal government were reaching a peak. In December of that year, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered by illegal immigrant cartel members in Arizona who had obtained guns from the U.S. government's Fast and Furious operation.

Federal officials initially denied and attempted to cover up the government's role in the weapons transfers. A sitting ATF agent, John Dodson, blew the whistle on the secret operation in a story with me for CBS News in early 2011.

Attorney General Eric Holder testified to Congress that he didn't know about the controversial program when it was underway. However, documents ultimately showed that he had received regular briefings on Fast and Furious. When those documents were made public, Holder said he hadn't read the briefings.

Although the White House denied knowledge of the cross-border gun operation, emails showed that several White House officials had discussed it. When reporters and Congress pursued more information, President Obama declared executive privilege to keep additional Fast and Furious documents from being released.

It's hard to imagine what could be considered so secret all these years after the operation was exposed. The FOI documents are copied below so that you can review them for yourself.

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI