SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: puborectalis who wrote (1060840)3/17/2018 6:03:38 PM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1574261
 
A former FBI agent battling Deputy Director McCabe said there is a 'cancer' inside the FBI

13

13

August 30, 2017 09:12 PM EDT

When the FBI launched an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, one of the bureau’s top former counterterrorism agents believed that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe would have to recuse himself from the investigation.

Former Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz was one of the bureau’s top intelligence analysts and terrorism experts but resigned from the bureau five years ago after she said she was harassed and her career was blocked by top FBI management. She filed a formal sexual discrimination complaint against the bureau in 2013 and it was Flynn, among many others, who publicly came to her aide.

In her first on-camera interview she described the retaliation from McCabe and others in the bureau as “vicious.”


Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe listens on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 11, 2017, while testifying before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on major threats facing the U.S. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

A 16-year veteran with outstanding work performance reviews and accomplishments, Gritz alleges McCabe, along with other senior management, made it impossible for her to do her job and obstructed her ability to move up the ranks.

She eventually filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint [EEOC] in 2013 for sexual discrimination and a hostile work environment against McCabe and other superiors. In 2012 she received the only negative review in her career with the FBI, and it was conducted by the same supervisor she had named in her EEOC.

She told Circa, current senior level management, including McCabe, created a “cancer like” bureaucracy striking fear into FBI agents and causing others to resign. She eventually resigned herself, but her case is still pending.

“They’ve poisoned the 7th floor,” said Gritz, referring to the actual floor where management is housed in the FBI’s Hoover Building. “There’s a cancer there of a group of people. You’ve seen it with some of the recent reports of leaks, conflicts of interest, you see it in my case. The level of integrity is lacking. I have never seen or heard of the amount of conflicts of interest, or leading by fear.”

McCabe, who is under three separate federal inquiries, did not respond to requests for comment.

Gritz, who at the time of her official complaint was on detail to the CIA, did not fight her battle alone. Many senior U.S. government officials who had worked with her throughout her career defended her openly. One of her biggest supporters was Flynn, who then was the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as first reported by Circa.

Earlier this year, a highly-classified phone conversation between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak was leaked to the press, prompting his removal as top national security advisor for President Trump. The classified leak and the fact that McCabe plays a central role in the Russia investigation has left Gritz deeply concerned for Flynn.

Five years later she’s waiting for resolution to her pending case and now she believes that those who retaliated against her, including McCabe, may have also retaliated against Flynn for his unwavering support for her. Flynn gave a rare interview to NPR in 2015 defending Gritz against McCabe.

“When I heard Michael Flynn was being brought under investigation, I wondered if they would go after him,” said Gritz, recalling the letter Flynn wrote on his Department of Defense stationary. “I still believe McCabe should have recused himself from the investigation into Flynn.”

Flynn had worked with Gritz extensively during her tenure on joint terrorism related assignments between the DOD and FBI wrote a letter on Pentagon stationary testifying to her character and work ethic. Other top military officials also wrote letters of testimony on behalf of Gritz, including Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Gen. Keith Alexander and retired Navy Rear Admiral B. L. Losey, who served both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama as the White House’s National Security Council Director for Combatting Terrorism, according to documents obtained by Circa.

The FBI’s attorney tried to block testimony from her supporters, including Flynn’s letter, in 2014, memos obtained by Circa show.

“They couldn’t block the testimony,” said Gritz, who smiled as she recalled the judge reprimanding the FBI for trying to block the testimony.
FBI agents’ concerns became more pronounced when a highly-classified piece of evidence -- an intercepted conversation between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak -- suddenly leaked to the news media and prompted Flynn’s resignation as Trump’s top security adviser.

“He thought what had been done to me was totally wrong at a time when we need counterterrorism expertise—to push out someone he considered a rising star was unacceptable.”

She said when FBI agents requested to write letters on her behalf they were stopped by their supervisors and coworkers who wanted to defend her were fearful.

“You could say my name, walking down the hall and if one of them hears it you’re in trouble,” she said, referencing McCabe and his close colleagues.
In June, a Circa investigation revealed that two weeks after Gritz filed her EEOC complaint, McCabe referred her for an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation for timecard irregularities.

Although the FBI claimed they had filed their OPR investigation prior to Gritz’s EEOC, McCabe’s own sworn testimony painted a much different picture. Gritz’s case, which is still pending, was required McCabe to submit to a sworn statement. In his testimony he recounted a conversation on June 19, 2012 in which he authorized the OPR investigation of Gritz after one of his deputies told him she was about to file a complaint, as reported by Circa.

And McCabe is also challenged with an Office of Special Counsel investigation.

The embattled former agent filed a complaint in April, alleging McCabe violated the Hatch Act, as reported by Circa in June.

The OSC is the government’s main whistle blower agency. The Hatch Act prohibits FBI employees from engaging "in political activity in concert with a political party, a candidate for partisan political office, or a partisan political group." McCabe appeared to be participating in his wife’s unsuccessful bid for Virginia State Senate in 2015, according to Gritz and documents obtained by Circa.

The Justice Department Inspector General investigation is also investigating McCabe after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, alleged McCabe may not have properly disclosed the roughly $700,000 in campaign contributions to his Democratic wife on his ethics report and should have recused himself from the Clinton server case.


J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, joined at left by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, leads a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 26, 2017, on attempts to influence American elections, with a focus on Russian meddling in the last presidential race. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Gritz is hoping she will have resolution on her case soon but more importantly she said “I just want the bureau to get back to where it should be.”

As for McCabe, she said “I don’t feel that Andy McCabe was honest to me. The conflicts of interest many of agents see right away. A lot of agents, analysts, former, current, retired are appalled that if they did similar they would have already been fired or at least on leave without pay.”



To: puborectalis who wrote (1060840)3/17/2018 7:33:24 PM
From: locogringo3 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
longnshort
majaman1978

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574261
 
Current and former intelligence officials laid into President Donald Trump and his allies in the wake of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe's firing late Friday night.

Who recommended his dismissal loser? Are you proud of being so gullible? Stupid people usually are. Get back to me after you educate yourself.




To: puborectalis who wrote (1060840)3/18/2018 9:11:14 AM
From: locogringo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574261
 
Educate yourself loser and note that I included links to the articles and did not pretend that I wrote it.

siliconinvestor.com

(BTW, you may ask somebody with a functioning brain who belongs to the initials RM mentioned in that post since that is way above your reasoning ability)



To: puborectalis who wrote (1060840)3/18/2018 10:46:01 AM
From: longnshort4 Recommendations

Recommended By
dave rose
FJB
locogringo
Taro

  Respond to of 1574261
 
The Five Reasons that PROVE firing Andrew McCabe was the logical, reasonable, right thing to do – The Right Scoop 8 scoop



To: puborectalis who wrote (1060840)3/26/2018 4:20:07 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 1574261
 
How the Nazis Used Gun Control

| National Review

nationalreview.com


The Weimar Republic’s well-intentioned gun registry became a tool for evil.

The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned.

The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack.

That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues.

SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released.

The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty.

No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent “universal background check” bills.

As in Weimar Germany, some well-meaning people today advocate severe restrictions, including bans and registration, on gun ownership by law-abiding persons. Such proponents are in no sense “Nazis,” any more than were the Weimar officials who promoted similar restrictions. And it would be a travesty to compare today’s situation to the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Still, as history teaches, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

— Stephen Halbrook is a research fellow with the Independent Institute and the author of the new book, Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State.”



To: puborectalis who wrote (1060840)3/28/2018 4:49:22 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 1574261
 
U.N. Watch Blasts Human Rights Council for Defining Practice of Judaism as ‘War Crime’

BY: Jack Heretik
March 28, 2018 3:01 pm

U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based NGO that monitors the United Nations, blasted the U.N. Human Rights Council during the council's March session for "defining the practice of Judaism as a war crime."

In an address to the international body, U.N. Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer criticized the council for its numerous anti-Israel resolutions when it has taken up so few against other countries who are known human rights violators, such as China and Saudi Arabia.

Neuer's remarks came while member countries were considering a blacklist of countries who do business in Israel. As part of the debate, some parties disputed the boundaries of Israel, and many countries and groups took swipes at the country.

South Africa's delegate compared treatment of Palestinians to that of apartheid in her own home country. Representatives from North Korea and the Palestinian Liberation Organization also condemned Israel.

"Israel continues to murder, to pursue ethnic cleansing, to grab natural resources and land, erect barriers, walls. It's been cutting down trees, demolishing houses, desecrating religious sites," the PLO representative said.

Neuer responded to the body by mentioning how much time and effort they spend criticizing Israel as opposed to true human rights violators.


"Mr. President, if you add up this session's country reports and resolutions, there are zero on China, zero on Saudi Arabia, and zero on most other countries, two on North Korea, three on Iran, and then 12 on Israel," Neuer said. "At a time when much of the Middle East is sinking from Syrian genocide, ISIS sexual enslavement of Yazidi girls, and deadly civil wars in Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sinai, by what logic or morality does this council devote so much of its time to singling out the region's only democracy? Why is the United Nations obsessed with scapegoating the world's only Jewish state?"

"I ask: Why is the United Nations defining the practice of Judaism as a war crime?" Neuer said.



To: puborectalis who wrote (1060840)4/20/2018 1:16:04 PM
From: locogringo3 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
Honey_Bee
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1574261
 
What do you think of the promised BOMBSHELLS from the Comey memos? What a DUD...not much different than you.

Don't worry, Maxine and MSLSD will certainly have Trump impeached by the weekend.....again.



To: puborectalis who wrote (1060840)4/20/2018 4:33:38 PM
From: locogringo1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1574261
 
Karen Lewis @ksl2


Two loiterers being removed from a Starbucks gets about 100 times more attention than two cops being assassinated while eating lunch.