FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 166 of 174 < 1 2 ... 164 165 166 167 168 ... 173 174 >
Topic Options
#1539114 --- 01/21/20 02:58 AM Re: More winning... [Re: ThomasDecker]
Ben444 Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 10109
Loc: Seneca County
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/interne...every-american/

Internet attacks #MidnightMitch for Republican impeachment sham: ‘A massive middle finger to every American’


a new poll was revealed Monday showing that the tide has turned against Trump, with 51 percent of Americans approving Trump being removed from office.
_________________________
John Kelly: if you only watch Fox news u are not an informed citizen!

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1539119 --- 01/21/20 07:32 AM Re: More winning... [Re: ThomasDecker]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12338
Loc: NY
Illegal Border Crossings Fall A Staggering Ninety Percent In Arizona Following Trump Policy Change
By Emily Zanotti
DailyWire.com


Illegal border crossings in Arizona “plunged” in December of 2019, according to the Associated Press, dropping a staggering 90% year-over-year following a Trump administration change in policy that has asylum seekers waiting for their adjudication hearings in Mexico and not in the United States.

Last winter, a “record number” of illegal border crossers were apprehended in the Arizona sector of the United States-Mexico border, with 60,000 migrants taken into United States Border Protection custody in December of 2019 alone, per the Washington Examiner. That was the beginning of a surge migrants crossing the United States’ southern border; by May of 2019, the Border Patrol was recording a record number of apprehensions every month, sometimes topping 100,000.

“50,753 people were arrested for trespassing from Mexico in December. It marks the third month in a row that more than 50,000 people have illegally crossed into to the U.S. Another 10,000 people who tried to enter through ports were told they lacked the documents to do so,” according to the Examiner. “Illegal immigration apprehensions at the southern border have skyrocketed since Trump’s first few months in office, when 15,000 to 20,000 people were reported being apprehended per month.”


In Arizona alone, the Border Patrol was registering around 14,000 apprehensions per month by May of 2019, but in October of 2019, there were only 800 apprehensions. In December of 2019, the streak kept up, and apprehensions dropped around 90%.

The Border Patrol credits the Trump administration’s new “remain in Mexico” policy, which requires those who want to seek refuge from violence and disorder by emigrating to the United States to stay south of the border until their asylum case comes before a judge. Before that policy took effect, asylum seekers were given a piece of paper with a court date and then released into the United States to stay with friends and family until they had to appear before a judge.

By the time their cases rolled around — sometimes two to three years after apprehension — most asylum-seekers were in the wind, impossible to find, and well-integrated into American life.

“Arrests in the Border Patrol’s Yuma sector nearly hit 14,000 in May, when the policy to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico took effect there. By October, they fell 94%, to less than 800, and have stayed there since, making Yuma the second-slowest of the agency’s nine sectors on the Mexican border, just ahead of the perennially quiet Big Bend sector in Texas,” the AP reported.


“Illegal crossings in western Arizona have swung sharply before, and there are several reasons for the recent drop. But Anthony Porvaznik, chief of the Border Patrol’s Yuma sector, said the so-called Migration Protection Protocols have been a huge deterrent, based on agents’ interviews with people arrested,” the outlet added.

“Their whole goal was to be released into the United States, and once that was taken off the shelf for them, and they couldn’t be released into the United States anymore, then that really diminished the amount of traffic that came through here,” Porvaznik said.

So far, the courts have largely upheld the president’s policy. In California, a court did order that asylum seekers be provided with access to an attorney before being sent back, and the courts have also suggested that those apprehended by Border Patrol be processed within 72 hours. Some waited “up to a week” in Yuma before being sent on.

Top
#1539122 --- 01/21/20 07:57 AM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 14476
Loc: Above ground
You got the citation for that unusually large number or is this just another one of your...lets say "Take my word for it"


https://www.dailywire.com/news/illegal-b...p-policy-change

Underground website DAILYWIRE, somehow you can't submit numbers from say CBS, ABC etc.

Top
#1539123 --- 01/21/20 08:07 AM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 14476
Loc: Above ground
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigrati...3fac_story.html

Do you actually think of a sensible strategy when you post or is this another one of your knee jerk article with no concept of logic. If the border crossings are so effective, why has elicit drug use and sales gone up 28 percent? seeing that these drugs are originating from the border. HMMM based on your logic, we can brag about arrests going up 40 percent while crime has increased 60 percent.....SMH

Top
#1539411 --- 01/23/20 12:58 PM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12338
Loc: NY
impeachment managers did a fine job of defeating themselves. The lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff kicked things off by cancelling his argument when he suggested the Democrats have overwhelming proof that Trump is guilty...but they need more evidence. Cortney O'Brien

Top
#1539415 --- 01/23/20 01:31 PM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 14476
Loc: Above ground
Originally Posted By: cwjga
impeachment managers did a fine job of defeating themselves. The lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff kicked things off by cancelling his argument when he suggested the Democrats have overwhelming proof that Trump is guilty...but they need more evidence. Cortney O'Brien



Alphonse Capone's lawyers did a fine job defending him at his corruption trial but the distinction between being found guilty or innocent is not fully the end of the matter but a final judgement coming from the same God you claim to serve....it's funny how two people know the truth...God and the corrupted individual.....More importantly, 70 percent of America knows the truth..extraordinary grin guilt. I can't imagine the amount of mistrust and lost of respect that is currently being exacted on the Republican party along with that aspect of Trump support.

Top
#1539428 --- 01/23/20 02:50 PM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32825
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Illegal Border Crossings Fall A Staggering Ninety Percent In Arizona Following Trump Policy Change



Nancy pelosi has been in politics her entire life.

She turned a blind eye to the illegal crossings the entire time.

Aiding and abetting by her

Jail time?
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#1539489 --- 01/23/20 04:29 PM Re: More winning... [Re: bluezone]
Ben444 Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 10109
Loc: Seneca County
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/marsha-...es-a-busy-mama/

Marsha Blackburn lashes out at conservative pundit — and pretends she’s a ‘busy mama’

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has spent most of the impeachment trial not paying attention. Now a conservative is calling her out for spending her third day in a row ignoring the proceedings.

She spent the first day of debate about amendments to the rules speaking with Fox News when she was supposed to be on the Senate floor.
_________________________
John Kelly: if you only watch Fox news u are not an informed citizen!

Top
#1539501 --- 01/23/20 05:05 PM Re: More winning... [Re: Ben444]
Ben444 Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 10109
Loc: Seneca County
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/gop-sen...eachment-trial/

GOP senator attacked Lt Col Vindman for not being patriotic — while she was ignoring the impeachment trial
_________________________
John Kelly: if you only watch Fox news u are not an informed citizen!

Top
#1539528 --- 01/24/20 02:22 AM Re: More winning... [Re: Ben444]
Ben444 Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 10109
Loc: Seneca County
Eileen Zucker Noga, Ph.D.

I just left a message for Chief Justice Roberts. A real person actually took my call and then transferred me to voicemail when I said I wanted to leave him a message. The number is:
202-479-3472. I requested that he intervene to make it a fair trial... witnesses and documents.
_________________________
John Kelly: if you only watch Fox news u are not an informed citizen!

Top
#1539535 --- 01/24/20 05:21 AM Re: More winning... [Re: Ben444]
Teonan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/30/12
Posts: 5389
Loc: Malmö
Ted Lieu talks Donald Trump and prison

Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu, a former military prosecutor, would probably be one of the House impeachment managers right now if not for his recent heart surgery. But Lieu is still chiming in from his Twitter account, and as per usual, he’s calling it precisely like he sees it, and he’s not holding back.

Throughout the day today, Donald Trump’s lawyers and Republican apologists have insisted that the articles of impeachment don’t actually accuse Trump of a crime. This of course doesn’t matter, as impeachment’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” don’t require a statutory violation of the law. But Ted Lieu was nonetheless quick to point out that Trump very much has committed a crime. In all caps, he tweeted this tonight:

CAN WE PLEASE SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. SOLICITING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO HELP YOUR RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN IS A CRIME. IT IS ILLEGAL. PRISON IS ONE OF THE PUNISHMENTS.


This is a crucial reminder, because while impeachment isn’t a criminal trial, this impeachment trial is a direct result of Donald Trump having committed a felony. If this were a criminal trial, he’d be going to prison if he’s convicted. This is also a reminder that if Trump loses the 2020 election, the post-Trump Department of Justice will all but certainly arrest and try him on criminal charges related to his Ukraine scandal. This is in addition to the New York grand jury that’s currently targeting Trump on financial crimes. The minute Trump is out of office, he will be arrested; the only question will be who gets to arrest him first.


https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/ted-lieu-talks-donald-trump-and-prison/24660/
_________________________
"Everything that has ever happened to us is there to make us stronger."
-John Trudell


Top
#1539538 --- 01/24/20 06:14 AM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12338
Loc: NY
Senate Sets Trump Impeachment Trial Rules — Top Takeaways From Day 1
Hans von Spakovsky · Jan. 23, 2020

The first day of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump was largely taken up with procedural issues. Senators argued over and then adopted an organizing resolution laying out the rules under which the trial will proceed.

In his opening statement, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., charged that the resolution proposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was “partisan,” a “national disgrace,” and a “dark day in Senate history.”

All of this heated rhetoric was based on Schumer’s misleading claim that McConnell’s resolution was unfair and significantly different from the resolution governing Bill Clinton’s trial. Yet the resolution adopted by the Senate (after Republicans voted down and tabled a series of Democratic amendments) is substantially the same as the resolution approved by the Senate 100-0 for the Clinton trial.

On Thursday of last week, the preliminaries required to even debate this issue were accomplished when Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, swore in the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, who will preside over the trial under Section 3 of Article I of the Constitution. Roberts then swore in all of the senators.

Both sides have already filed briefs with the Senate. On Jan. 18 the House filed a 100-plus page “Trial Memorandum” and “Statement of Material Facts” outlining its case against President Trump.

The president filed an answer the same day, disputing the basis for his impeachment, calling it a “dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president” and “a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election.”

The House then filed a response to the president on Jan. 20 accusing the president of conduct intended to “bury the evidence” against him and to “cheat in the next election.” The president’s lawyers filed their own 100-page plus “Trial Memorandum” with an extensive appendix also on Jan. 20.

So what are the differences between the Clinton and Trump resolutions? Both provide that the House shall file with the Senate all “publicly available materials” produced by the House committees involved in the impeachment investigations, including “transcripts of public hearings or mark-ups and any materials printed by the House of Representatives” pursuant to the impeachment resolutions.

The only difference is that in the Clinton case, these materials were automatically admitted into evidence. The Trump resolution provides that they will also be admitted into evidence “subject to any hearsay, evidentiary, or other objections that the President may make after opening presentations."That makes sense from both a fairness and fundamental due process standpoint.

Why? Because in the Clinton impeachment investigation, unlike the Trump impeachment investigation, representatives of both political parties were allowed to fully cross-examine and call witnesses of their choice.

In the current case, House Democrats changed the rules to prevent Republicans and the president’s lawyers from being able to fully participate, cross-examine witnesses, or even call witnesses they believed had important relevant information.

So it makes sense for the president’s legal team to be able to object to hearsay evidence, evidence produced by witnesses that neither they nor Republicans representatives were allowed to fully question, or where they raise serious questions about the credibility (or lack thereof) and relevance of particular testimony produced in the House.

Just like in the Clinton impeachment, each side is being given 24 hours to present its case. Both sides took three days to do so in the Clinton case, and the revised resolution also gives both parties 24 hours over "3 session days” to make their arguments.

The Trump resolution — just like the Clinton resolution — then gives senators 16 hours to question the prosecution and the defense teams, although they must do so through written questions submitted by the chief justice.

While Democrats have been pushing to decide on whether or not to call witnesses now before the trial has even begun, that would violate the procedures approved during the Clinton impeachment, which are replicated in the Trump resolution.

Then and now, the Senate will decide whether witnesses should be called only after both sides have presented their case and the senators have had the opportunity to submit their questions to the House managers and the president’s defense team.

Senators were given up to six hours to make and argue motions about subpoenaing witnesses or evidence not in the record during the Clinton trial; this revised resolution gives senators up to four hours to do so.

Furthermore, both impeachment resolutions have the same procedure when it comes to witnesses if the Senate decides to allow any to be called. No live witnesses, instead, the parties will take their depositions and the Senate will then decide which witnesses will appear through their taped depositions.

While there was a lot of political theater on Tuesday in which the Democrats claimed the system has been “rigged” and that Sen. McConnell and Republicans were not following precedent, the revised resolution sets up procedural rules that adhere to the Clinton precedent very closely.

The only substantive change is the ability of the president’s team to object to evidence produced by the House, a change necessitated by the way in which Democrats themselves changed the rules in the House and failed to follow the Clinton precedents used during the Clinton impeachment investigation

It is not the Senate’s job to complete the House’s investigation. If House Democrats believe they did not talk to all of the relevant witnesses, why did they speed ahead with an impeachment vote before doing so?

The substantive fireworks in the impeachment trial will start Wednesday. That’s when the Senate will hear any motions filed by the parties (other than motions to subpoena witnesses or documents) and House managers will begin to present their case against the president.

Everyone in Washington will be watching. Will the rest of America?

Top
#1539539 --- 01/24/20 06:36 AM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
Ben444 Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 10109
Loc: Seneca County
Originally Posted By: cwjga
It is not the Senate’s job to complete the House’s investigation. If House Democrats believe they did not talk to all of the relevant witnesses, why did they speed ahead with an impeachment vote before doing so??
Because Trump told them not to talk and the courts are so damn slow the Nov 2020 election would be over before they rendered an opinion as you well know.
_________________________
John Kelly: if you only watch Fox news u are not an informed citizen!

Top
#1539540 --- 01/24/20 06:37 AM Re: More winning... [Re: Ben444]
Ben444 Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 10109
Loc: Seneca County
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/this-en...ng-impeachment/

This ends badly for Trump’s lackeys’: MSNBC’s Morning Joe warns GOP senators they’re doomed for opposing impeachment
_________________________
John Kelly: if you only watch Fox news u are not an informed citizen!

Top
#1539542 --- 01/24/20 06:42 AM Re: More winning... [Re: Ben444]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12338
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: cwjga
It is not the Senate’s job to complete the House’s investigation. If House Democrats believe they did not talk to all of the relevant witnesses, why did they speed ahead with an impeachment vote before doing so??
Because Trump told them not to talk and the courts are so damn slow the Nov 2020 election would be over before they rendered an opinion as you well know.


So you think the Dems should rig the election? I see. wink

Top
#1539545 --- 01/24/20 07:02 AM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
Ben444 Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 10109
Loc: Seneca County
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: cwjga
It is not the Senate’s job to complete the House’s investigation. If House Democrats believe they did not talk to all of the relevant witnesses, why did they speed ahead with an impeachment vote before doing so??
Because Trump told them not to talk and the courts are so damn slow the Nov 2020 election would be over before they rendered an opinion as you well know.


So you think the Dems should rig the election? I see. wink
Your comment is so damn ridiculous I am not going to respond to it.
_________________________
John Kelly: if you only watch Fox news u are not an informed citizen!

Top
#1539550 --- 01/24/20 07:10 AM Re: More winning... [Re: Ben444]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12338
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: cwjga
It is not the Senate’s job to complete the House’s investigation. If House Democrats believe they did not talk to all of the relevant witnesses, why did they speed ahead with an impeachment vote before doing so??
Because Trump told them not to talk and the courts are so damn slow the Nov 2020 election would be over before they rendered an opinion as you well know.


So you think the Dems should rig the election? I see. wink
Your comment is so damn ridiculous I am not going to respond to it.


How so? Unfortunately the Democrats have politized impeachment. It is a sad day for our republic and the constitution.

Top
#1539552 --- 01/24/20 07:19 AM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
Ben444 Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 10109
Loc: Seneca County
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: Ben444
Originally Posted By: cwjga
It is not the Senate’s job to complete the House’s investigation. If House Democrats believe they did not talk to all of the relevant witnesses, why did they speed ahead with an impeachment vote before doing so??
Because Trump told them not to talk and the courts are so damn slow the Nov 2020 election would be over before they rendered an opinion as you well know.

So you think the Dems should rig the election? I see. wink
Your comment is so damn ridiculous I am not going to respond to it.

How so? Unfortunately the Democrats have politized impeachment. It is a sad day for our republic and the constitution.
The saddest days are going to be when Trump is acquitted, cancels the Nov 2020 election and announces he will be president for life as he said President XI of China and has done it has worked out well for them.
_________________________
John Kelly: if you only watch Fox news u are not an informed citizen!

Top
#1539553 --- 01/24/20 07:20 AM Re: More winning... [Re: Ben444]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12338
Loc: NY
A Tale of Two Whistleblowers: One Protected, One Not
.By Susan Crabtree - RCP StaffJanuary 17, 2020

A Trump political appointee who reported allegations of rampant government waste, fraud and abuse has experienced none of the protections granted the whistleblower who filed the Ukrainian aid complaint against President Trump, which has culminated in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial set to begin in earnest next week.

Last summer and into the fall, the whistleblower who reported, second-hand, Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was shrouded in protections from the intelligence community’s inspector general – protections touted by Democrats on Capitol Hill as sacrosanct.


During those same months, Mark Moyar, who, over the course of several months had reported multiple instances of wrongdoing at the U.S. Agency for International Development, had the opposite experience with his inspector general, who was appointed by President Obama and confirmed in 2015.

In fact, the USAID inspector general, Ann Calvaresi Barr, and top deputies in the office denied Moyar’s due process rights after USAID officials suspended (and threatened to revoke) his security clearance, and he was forced to resign, according to several government officials familiar with the case and several government documents.

In a letter sent to Capitol Hill earlier this week seeking assistance from lawmakers, Moyar lamented the trouble he’s had finding a full-time job because of his “abrupt termination” and the decision by USAID officials to tell the White House Office of Presidential Personnel that he cannot hold a security clearance. With the first term of the Trump administration coming to an end in a year, Moyar argued his financial situation will go “from bad to terrible” and fears he may never get a fair hearing.

Moyar also urged members of Congress to contact “USAID leadership, the White House, the Department of Justice and anyone else who might be able to help rectify the matter.”

“The USAID administrator has the authority to reverse wrongful decisions and to seek investigative assistance from outside the agency, which is clearly necessary in light of the bias demonstrated by USAID [Office of Inspector General] and [the USAID Security Office],” he wrote.

“If this precedent is allowed to stand, then in the future the Deep State can remove any political appointee by simply having their friends in one agency send an unsubstantiated allegation of security clearance infraction to another agency,” he added.

A congressional source provided a copy of the letter and related documents to RealClearPolitics.

Because Moyar was a political appointee, the USAID inspector general should have used Presidential Policy Directive 19, which Obama first signed in 2012 and was later expanded, to provide Moyar due process after career officials took action against him while he was on paid administrative leave last summer, according to a legal expert and congressional aides familiar with whistleblower protections.

Obama signed PPD-19 to ensure that whistleblowers who have access to classified information have a way to adjudicate any threats to their security clearances that may be retaliatory. The law has strong bipartisan support across Capitol Hill, particularly from whistleblower advocates such as Sens. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, and Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat.

Before his time at USAID, Moyar, who has a doctorate in history from Cambridge University and an undergraduate degree from Harvard, served as the director of the Project on Military and Diplomatic History at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and had served as a member of the Hoover Institution’s Working Group on the Role of Military History in Contemporary Conflict.

In internal documents, USAID acknowledged suspending Moyar’s security clearance last summer based on an allegation from U.S. Special Operations Command that he disclosed classified information in a book he wrote, an academic history of the U.S. Special Forces that was published two years prior.

Moyar, in a sworn statement to USAID, argues the allegation is unfounded and an act of retaliation.

When Moyar asked IG officials whether PPD-19 applied in his case, he was told it did not.

“None of the actions taken by USAID with regard to your clearance violate the whistleblower protection or other due process provisions of PPD-19 or [the controlling statute],” Suzann Gallagher, acting assistant inspector general for investigations at the USAID Office of Inspector General, wrote to Moyar in a letter dated Jan. 10, 2020.

Earlier in the letter, Gallagher said that the IG’s office had found that USAID officials had not engaged in any retaliatory action against him and that USAID Office of Security had suspended his clearance “pending further review.”

Gallagher asserted that the review was short-circuited by Moyar’s “voluntary resignation” and the USAID Office of Security, which is in charge of security clearances, “did not render an adjudication on your eligibility for a clearance.”

The letter from Moyar circulating on Capitol Hill asks for “assistance in thwarting a brazen attempt by federal bureaucrats to subvert the Trump administration and legitimate whistleblowing.”

He calls the allegation that his book disclosed classified information “spurious and unsubstantiated.”

Sean Bigley, a lawyer who specializes in security clearance retaliation cases, tells RCP what happened to Moyar at USAID “is shady as hell.”

Bigley, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed and in numerous media interviews, has voiced deep concern that career officials are weaponizing clearances to unfairly target and oust Trump appointees in retaliation or simply because of political differences, something he seldom saw during the Obama administration.

“There is no question that federal law, policy and precedent all support Dr. Moyar’s position,” he said in a statement to RCP. “It’s a ludicrous argument USAID IG is making — that a security clearance suspension isn’t covered by applicable reprisal law. [That argument] is a transparent pretext to avoid holding their buddies in the [USAID] security office accountable. The same argument has already been rejected by other inspectors general, and it doesn’t pass the laugh test for credibility.”

Bigley said he didn’t know why Trump-appointed USAID Administrator Mark Green would sign off on forcing Moyar out without due process, but argued that oftentimes Trump agency heads are fighting too many other battles with career officials and may not know enough about the applicable law to evaluate security clearance cases at the agencies they run.

After representing more than two dozen Trump appointees who have had their clearances targeted, Bigley said he considers the trend an “epidemic.” Along with many unnamed clients, Bigley represents Adam Lovinger, a former Trump National Security Council official. Lovinger had his clearance revoked while serving on the NSC after he was accused of improperly carrying classified information on an airplane, a charge that Bigley says was never substantiated.

Bigley argues that Lovinger was targeted after he blew the whistle on lucrative contracts the Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment was doling out, including those to FBI informant Stefan Halper, who played a key role in the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia.

Moyar’s case, Bigley said, is “yet another example” of the security clearance system “being weaponized against Trump appointees who dare to speak up and challenge malfeasance in the bureaucracy.”

“This case cries out for congressional and potentially law enforcement intervention,” Bigley said. “More broadly, Dr. Moyar and the many other administration officials subjected to similar abuses, need to know that the White House has their back. A message needs to be sent from the top that this type of behavior will not be tolerated.”

In the documents making the rounds on Capitol Hill, Moyar said he was terminated, then forced to resign.

Citing privacy laws, at first a USAID spokesperson said the agency could only provide the dates when Moyar served as a political appointee at the agency: from Feb. 5, 2018 until his “resignation” on Aug. 3, 2019.

Friday morning USAID spokeswoman Pooja Jhunjhunwala added to that statement, maintaining that USAID is “fully compliant with PPD-19,” including “the prohibition on retaliating against employees by affecting their eligibility for access to classified information.”

“Any employee who believes they were subjected to reprisal can request an external review by a three-member inspector general panel,” she said in the statement.

Bigley counters that if USAID were in compliance, agency officials would have been careful not to allow any retaliation to occur, and the inspector general would have acknowledged the PPD-19 process applies to Moyar’s situation without his prompting and then conducted a credible reprisal investigation.

“They didn’t do either,” he said.

In a written statement Thursday, the USAID inspector general’s office said that “under the law, we cannot confirm or deny the existence of any particular whistleblower complaint or case.”

“USAID OIG takes every claim of whistleblower retaliation seriously and investigates them in accordance with all applicable laws, consistent with its mandate to provide independent and objective oversight,” the statement said.

“USAID OIG does not dispute that PPD-19 and 50 USC 3341 prohibit retaliatory actions with respect to any employee’s security clearance or access determination,” it continued.

The OIG maintains that “when requested by whistleblower complainants,” it has “provided them with detailed information about the investigation and final disposition of their complaint.”

Both USAID and the USAID inspector general’s office acknowledge that Moyar reported numerous allegations of fraud and abuse in an office filled with career employees, according to the documents about the case making the rounds on Capitol Hill. At least some of those complaints became IG inquiries.

Top officials, both at USAID and its IG office, have maintained that the decision to suspend Moyar’s security clearance was not a result of retaliation for the whistleblowing. Instead, they say the USAID Office of Security suspended his security clearance in June of last year after USAID officials received a memo from the United States Special Operations Command informing them that Moyar had disclosed classified information in his book “Oppose Any Foe: The Rise of America’s Special Operations Forces.”

Moyar maintains that the book, published two years prior to the USSOCOM complaint, is academic in nature and based on open-sourced information, according to a sworn statement included in the package of documents about his case circulating on Capitol Hill.

A review of the book lauding it as an “excellent primer” was published on the CIA’s website shortly after it was published in 2017 and remains there.

In his sworn statement, Moyar questions the timing of the USSOCOM allegation, which came after he spent months reporting on waste and abuse at USAID. He said the Department of Defense never provided any specific information on what classified information the book disclosed. He also said he submitted the book to the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review, as the law requires, more than one year before it was published in April 2017.

A 30-60 day period set out in the office’s guidance as the expected time period for the review to conclude came and went without a response, he said. He said he continued to press the office for a completion date, to no avail. After 145 working days and seven calendar months, and no timeline for the review’s completion, Moyar decided to move forward with publishing it.

He is hardly alone in his frustrations with the review process. Several legal experts for years have argued that the intelligence community’s pre-publication book review process is broken and results in unjustifiable harms to free speech. Jack Goldsmith and Oona Hathaway, professors of law at Harvard and Yale, respectively, both of whom have been top lawyers for the Defense Department, have argued that the pre-publication review process is expansive and arbitrary and has become “unreasonable.”

In a 2015 Washington Post op-ed, the pair argue the system is “racked with pathologies” that amount to violations of constitutionally guaranteed free speech. The article notes that former CIA Director Stansfield Turner long ago complained about the “extreme arbitrariness” of the review process, and more recently former Obama CIA Director Leon Panetta became so frustrated with the “overzealous” review process that he sent his memoir to the publisher before receiving clearance.

The pair called the complaints the “tip of the iceberg.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University have filed a lawsuit, Edgar v. Coats, on behalf of five former public servants challenging the government’s pre-publication review system.

Brett Max Kaufman, an ACLU senior attorney litigating the case, said he couldn’t comment specifically on Moyar’s experience but said the “thrust of his complaints are symptomatic of what is really a broken pre-publication review system.”

“The indefinite withholding of pre-publication clearance, based on the experience of our plaintiffs, is a huge problem,” he told RCP. “There are no mandatory time limits that that agency needs to review submissions from former employees, the sort of firm timeline limitation [that] is a bedrock First Amendment protection against government licensing schemes such as this.”

The lack of hard timelines for completing the reviews, Kaufman said, “bleeds into” other problems surrounding the process.

“The fact that there are no firm timelines means that certain people get preferential treatment depending on their viewpoint or whether they know someone and they can push that lever, which allows for favoritism and just unfairness throughout the process,” he said.

Top
#1539555 --- 01/24/20 07:49 AM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
Ben444 Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 10109
Loc: Seneca County
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/rudy-gi...to-cut-him-off/

Fox & Friends host desperately tries to cut off Rudy Giuliani as he spins more Ukraine conspiracies
_________________________
John Kelly: if you only watch Fox news u are not an informed citizen!

Top
Page 166 of 174 < 1 2 ... 164 165 166 167 168 ... 173 174 >