The Cabal; the Weaponization of Government - deel V

quote:

Op vrijdag 15 februari 2019 19:14 schreef dellipder het volgende:

[..]

Op zijn zachts gezegd opmerkelijk dat je alleen dit haalt uit de laatste drie berichten die ik heb gepost. En misschien moet je eens proberen voorbij de spin in artikelen te lezen.
Voor deze reeks heb ik bijvoorbeeld weleens naar The View gekeken om ook daar de details te extraheren over de reikwijdte van het machtsmisbruik van de overheid.
Je moet je even voorstellen dat de adjunct-directeur -op dit zekere moment waarnemend directeur- gelooft dat hij een juridische rechtvaardiging heeft muiterij te plegen door een legitiem verkozen president te onderzoeken om hem te verwijderen uit zijn ambt.
En hij denkt ook dat hieraan niets mis is! Het is werkelijk onvoorstelbaar dat iemand in zijn positie het op zich neemt een soft coup te organiseren en hierover op nationale televisie op te scheppen.

quote:

[..]

Wat staat de 25th Amendment toe in termen van het verwijderen van een zittende president uit zijn ambt?
De enige bepaling die van toepassing is is artikel 4:

[..]

bron

Nergens staat hier dat een adjunct-directeur van de FBI in het geheim kan vergaderen en een plot kan smeden door stemmen te ronselen onder kabinetsleden, zodat een zittende president kan worden verwijderd uit zijn ambt.
De 25th Amendment gebruiken om een president die niet op zijn doodsbed te verwijderen is totaal krankzinnig.

Daarnaast maakt de FBI deel uit van de uitvoerende macht van de regering. De directeur van de FBI valt onder de autoriteit van de president. In feite kan de president de FBI-directeur op elk moment ontslaan; het is volledig binnen zijn bevoegdheid om dit te doen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 15 februari 2019 23:15 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

Mijn beeld bij de betrouwbaarheid van de The Gray Lady had ik al opgebouwd voor jouw bijdrages. Ik heb nu eenmaal ook een leven naast forum.fok.nl
Het is niet verboden om te vernemen wat men daar te melden heeft, maar dan meer vanuit het oogpunt een antropologische veldstudie. Zeker niet als enige nieuwsbron bruikbaar.

quote:

McCabe laat het gedrag zien van iemand die in een clubje zit met een sterke mening, en het blijkbaar niet voor de buitenwereld kan verbergen. De meesten uit dat clubje letten beter op hun woorden in de communicatie met de rest. McCabe is geen uitzondering in denkbeelden, wel ik de openheid daarin.

quote:

Op zondag 17 februari 2019 14:31 schreef dellipder het volgende:

[..]

Dat laatste sowieso niet. In deze reeks gebruik ik verschillende bronnen, zoals nieuwsartikelen, videomateriaal en overheidsdocumenten.
Ik wil hier nu geen discussie over de media van maken -later zal dit nog aan bod komen in de sfeer van de media leaks vanuit de FBI en DoJ- en al helemaal niet over de partijdigheid van outlets als CNN, The Washington Post en MSNBC, maar het punt dat ik wil maken is dat het compleet afserveren van een partijdige bron voor mij geen optie is.

quote:

Ik vermoed dat de vraag niet moet zijn of, maar wanneer McCabe in staat van beschuldiging zal worden gesteld -gelet alleen al hoe zwaar de special counsel liegen tegen het Congres -in het geval van Roger Stone- aanrekent.

quote:

Op zondag 17 februari 2019 16:00 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

[..]

We zijn het grotendeels eens.
Er kan natuurlijk ook een moment komen dat zoveel lezers af gaan haken dat bovengenoemde media zich wel gedwongen gaan voelen om wel journalistiek te gaan bedrijven.
De route die nu gekozen wordt is via Google/Facebook/Twitter/YouTube alles wat conservatief is het woord te ontnemen. Ook in de EU via de "fake news bestrijding", de echte zorg voor de EU is natuurlijk het onwelgevallige nieuws te bestrijden.

[..]

Ik vind liegen een te sterke term. Het was meer een geheugentest. "Had u 13 juli twee jaar geleden gesproken met Mr X over uw hond op de barbeque? Uh.. ja... Nee, u liegt het ging toen over de tuin" Beetje flauw voorbeeld. Roger Stone is nu eenmaal een vertrouweling van Trump. En het signaal wat afgegeven dient te worden is blijkbaar dat het niet aan te raden om je bij Trump aan te sluiten. Roger Stone heeft geen contact gehad met WikiLeaks.
Als Mueller daar belangstelling in had gehad had hij contact op kunnen nemen met Kim Dotcom.

https://twitter.com/kimdotcom/status/965295456690454528

Ik vraag me af of McCabe de gevangenis ingaat. Ik zie teveel boefjes hun straf ontlopen. Zo gaat het al tientallen jaren overigens, staat los van Trump.

quote:

Op zondag 17 februari 2019 16:00 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

Ik vind liegen een te sterke term. Het was meer een geheugentest. "Had u 13 juli twee jaar geleden gesproken met Mr X over uw hond op de barbeque? Uh.. ja... Nee, u liegt het ging toen over de tuin" Beetje flauw voorbeeld. Roger Stone is nu eenmaal een vertrouweling van Trump. En het signaal wat afgegeven dient te worden is blijkbaar dat het niet aan te raden om je bij Trump aan te sluiten. Roger Stone heeft geen contact gehad met WikiLeaks.
Als Mueller daar belangstelling in had gehad had hij contact op kunnen nemen met Kim Dotcom.

https://twitter.com/kimdotcom/status/965295456690454528

Ik vraag me af of McCabe de gevangenis ingaat. Ik zie teveel boefjes hun straf ontlopen. Zo gaat het al tientallen jaren overigens, staat los van Trump.

twitter:

wikileaks twitterde op zaterdag 16-02-2019 om 03:30:34 @CNN The communications are the @WikiLeaks account telling Roger Stone to stop going around falsely claiming that he was in contact with Assange. They were provided to Congress and the public over a year ago. There can be little excuse for concealing the true context. https://t.co/gAzOMtgzZg reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 17 februari 2019 19:01 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Jij kent hem persoonlijk?

CNN's Chris Cuomo Censoring WikiLeaks Revelations About Hillary Clinton

quote:

Op zondag 17 februari 2019 19:07 schreef dellipder het volgende:

[..]

De juridische term die gebruikt wordt is het afleggen van een valse getuigenverklaring. Zo staat het ook in de aanklacht omschreven:

[ afbeelding ]

bron

En weet je zo'n aanklacht is slechts een kant van het verhaal, die van de staat. De verdediging heeft ook nog een rol te spelen met de discovery en tijdens de zittingsdagen.
Het lijkt dat veel mensen dit vergeten en denken dat met elke indictment "the walls are closing in" enzovoort en dat dit betekent dat het hiermee de zaak is afgedaan.
Niets is minder waar.

En over het contact tussen Roger Stone en Julian Assange.
Good old #FakeNews CNN probeerde het een paar dagen gelden nog:

Special counsel prosecutors say they have communications of Stone with WikiLeaks

De roast van Wikileaks hierop:

twitter:

wikileaks twitterde op zaterdag 16-02-2019 om 03:30:34 @:CNN The communications are the @:WikiLeaks account telling Roger Stone to stop going around falsely claiming that he was in contact with Assange. They were provided to Congress and the public over a year ago. There can be little excuse for concealing the true context. https://t.co/gAzOMtgzZg reageer retweet

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op zondag 17 februari 2019 19:26 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

[..]

Roger Stone en Michael Flynn werden gelokt in een perjury trap. Alleen mogelijk via een corrupte FBI.
Het afleggen van een valse verklaring kan ook te maken hebben met verdoezelen van gepleegde misdrijven, dat is niet aan de orde bij Stone en ook niet bij Flynn.
Bij Flynn werd ook nog eens ontlastende informatie uit het eind dossier gehouden.

quote:

Op zondag 17 februari 2019 19:22 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

[..]

Nee, jij wel dan?

Ik herinner me wel dat Roger Stone hamerde op het belang om de WikiLeaks informatie. Iets wat door de meeste media niet gedaan werd. Een echte journalist gaat op zoek naar informatie.

CNN ontraadde zelfs om de Wikileaks informatie te lezen want dat zou strafbaar zijn. Toen WikiLeaks allerlei nieuwtjes over de invasie van Irak had te melden was er wel een gretigheid te bespeuren bij de meeste media.

CNN's Chris Cuomo Censoring WikiLeaks Revelations About Hillary Clinton

Ik ben zelf ook voorstander om de inhoud van WikiLeaks te bestuderen en daar vervolgonderzoeken op te baseren ter controle.
Dat is niet hetzelfde als dat ik zelf in contact met WikiLeaks sta. Dat is de beschuldiging richting Stone.

quote:

Op zondag 17 februari 2019 19:27 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

[..]

Als Mueller echt wil weten wie de DNC gehacked heeft kan de special council contact opnemen met Wikileaks en met Kim Dotcom, allebei betrokken.

BREAKING 🔴 Mueller Investigation Almost COMPLETE says Matt Whitaker at DOJ Press Conference

quote:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is expected to leave his post in mid-March and newly installed Attorney General William Barr will name his new deputy as soon as this week, CBS News has learned. It's expected to be Deputy Transportation Secretary Jeffrey Rosen, CBS News correspondent Paula Reid reports.

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 februari 2019 17:14 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Ik was redelijk verbaasd dat "Rod Rosenstein gaat de DoJ verlaten" vandaag nieuws was.

Een paar weken geleden was dit juist nieuws, omdat Rosenstein zijn DAG functie zou verlaten wanneer SCO Robert Mueller's onderzoek tot een conclusie zou komen en zou worden afgewikkeld.

Rod Rosenstein, who oversaw Mueller probe, leaving DOJ after investigation wraps up

Rosenstein to leave DOJ in coming weeks, sources say

Dit zijn artikelen van begin januari.

Verder nog even in overweging nemen dat Matt Whitaker 28 januari een persconferentie had belegd waarin hij vertelde dat hij volledig ingelicht was over de Mueller probe en dat deze "close to being completed" was.

BREAKING 🔴 Mueller Investigation Almost COMPLETE says Matt Whitaker at DOJ Press Conference

De verwachting is dat Rosenstein medio maart zal vertrekken:

[..]

bron

Uit al het bovenstaande kan men afleiden dat Mueller's probe medio maart afgerond zal zijn.

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 februari 2019 18:27 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Merkwaardige conclusie, maar het mooie is dat we een datum erbij hebben gekregen van jou. We gaan het zien.

quote:

Op maandag 18 februari 2019 19:56 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Jezelf quoten?

Hoe weet je dat ze dat nog niet gedaan hebben, dan?

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 februari 2019 18:47 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

[..]

Aldus Julian Assange en Kim Dotcom. En het ontbreken van duidelijke uitleg van de Mueller dat het niet in deze richting zit.
Dan zijn er nog de broertjes Awan die op stap gingen met data van oa Debbie Wasserman Schultz, van de DNC-die volgens Mueller door de Russen gehacked zou zijn:
http://www.sunshinestaten(...)wan-brothers-records

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 februari 2019 20:05 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie daar niets over Assange en Dotcom...

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 februari 2019 22:47 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

[..]

Er zijn meerdere kandidaten voor de DNC hack/leak. Ik noem er twee:
1] de route via Seth Rich(?)/Kim Dotcom/WikiLeaks
2] de Awan broertjes

Dan is er nog de Roemeen Guccifer die blijkbaar Colin Powell wist te hacken.

Voor Trump is geen aanwijzing, nog steeds niet. De Democrats wilden gewoon de verkiezingsuitslag rechtzetten. Zo simpel is het.

quote:

Justice Department preparing for Mueller report as early as next week

Washington (CNN)Attorney General Bill Barr is preparing to announce as early as next week the completion of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, with plans for Barr to submit to Congress soon after a summary of Mueller's confidential report, according to people familiar with the plans.
The preparations are the clearest indication yet that Mueller is nearly done with his almost two-year investigation.
The precise timing of the announcement is subject to change.
The scope and contours of what Barr will send to Congress remain unclear. Also unclear is how long it will take Justice officials to prepare what will be submitted to lawmakers

quote:

Op dinsdag 19 februari 2019 23:23 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Zeker het nieuws niet gevolgd? Iets met voter fraud...

quote:

Op woensdag 20 februari 2019 20:38 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

[..]

Geen zorgen, ik volg het nieuws. Al ontsnapt er natuurlijk wel iets aan het sleepnet.
De Democrats hebben de verkiezingen verloren ONDANKS de grootschalige voter fraud. En om de verkiezingsuitslag alsnog in de gewenste richting te krijgen werd er een initiatief ingezet om Trump af te zetten.
Ik hoop dat Trump doorzet en die schandvlek wegwerkt, en dat hij niet al te veel van die slappe achterbakse partijgenoten merkt.

En er blijft maar drek tevoorschijn komen. Hier betrokkenheid van de FBI en DOJ bij het wegmoffelen van de Clinton-crimes:
https://www.thegatewaypun(...)lated-crimes-part-i/

quote:

Mr. Ratcliffe: So do you know if at any point in time, did Jim Comey as FBI Director ever tell President Trump that President Trump was under criminal investigation?

Mr. Baker: I think — my understanding and belief is that he never told — that he told the President the opposite.

Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) would later ask, “How could President Trump obstruct a criminal investigation into his actions if he doesn’t know there’s a criminal investigation into his actions?”

In other words, if Trump was never told he was under investigation, his firing of Comey could not have been for the purpose of obstructing an investigation of himself.

Baker responded to Ratcliffe’s observation by claiming, “But he could have tried to obstruct the investigation with respect to others.”

However, this line of logic quickly led to another conclusion that was captured in a sequence between Ratcliffe and Baker:

Mr. Ratcliffe: Okay. So your notion is that President Trump may have obstructed justice possibly because of the actions of others. Are there any limitations on a President’s pardon authority?

Mr. Baker: Well, the contours of the President’s pardon authority, I think, are not completely clear. So the question, for example, can the President pardon himself?

Mr. Ratcliffe: But we’re talking about others. I’m trying to figure out why President Trump would obstruct justice into an investigation of Michael Flynn or Paul Manafort or anyone else if he had the ability to pardon those folks, which I believe is an absolute authority under the Constitution.

quote:

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein Delivers Remarks at the Wharton School’s Legal Studies and Business Ethics Lecture Series

Philadelphia, PA~ Thursday, February 21, 2019

Thank you for that kind introduction, Dean Ruger. It is a great honor to join you here.

When I spoke at Wharton two years ago, it was one of my first significant public events as Deputy Attorney General. I came back today for one of my last significant events as Deputy Attorney General. Each time, I brought one of my daughters.

I encourage my children to spend time in Philadelphia for two reasons. First, I grew up about 20 miles from here. I arrived on this campus in 1982, at age 17. This city, and this university, shaped me. The second and more important reason is that Philadelphia is the home of the United States Constitution. I mention the Constitution in almost every speech. It is not just the words that matter. The history and context matter.

History and context are important. When I attended Penn, we had fewer sources of information. As a result, my world seemed a lot smaller than yours, and a great deal slower. News arrived twice a day – mornings and evenings – and there were only a few outlets. Reporters generally refrained from passing on gossip and innuendo. Most people had limited ability to communicate with anyone beyond their neighborhood.

Today, you are relentlessly bombarded with information, much of it of unknown reliability. The internet lets people share their most ignorant thoughts. Many news stories rely on anonymous sources, without providing details to assess their credibility and bias. Some critics worry that our society will be unable to distinguish fact from opinion, and truth from fiction.

But I remain optimistic about your generation. Most adults were raised with the mindset that they could rely on one or two trusted intermediaries to deliver objective facts – a local newspaper, perhaps, and a favorite television news anchor.

But members of your generation take a different approach. You do not rely on any one news source. You recognize that some people who appear regularly on television – the ones who always form an opinion before they know the facts – those characters are in the entertainment business. Because you understand that, you are more skeptical, and less gullible.

I work in a town where almost everyone is obsessed with breaking news, but I unplugged the television in my office. I try not to worry too much about what a commentator may say in the next 30 minutes. Instead, our law enforcement team focuses on what it takes to keep America safe for the next 30 years, and beyond.

When you study history, you learn to focus on the things that matter. How many of you know the origin of the phrase, “There is nothing new under the sun?” It is from the Book of Ecclesiastes, written 2,500 years ago. It is not meant to be taken literally. It is a lesson about human nature. Human nature is why we need rules, and it is why rules only work if we enforce them.

In 1787, Benjamin Franklin joined other leaders at Independence Hall to establish rules for America. When Franklin was walking home from the Constitutional Convention – about two miles from here – a woman named Elizabeth Powel asked him what type of government the Founders created. Franklin replied with these words: “A republic, … if you can keep it.”

Mrs. Powel’s question illustrates that it was not certain that our nation would be a democratic republic. Franklin’s answer reminds us that it is not inevitable that we will remain a democratic republic. The Constitution comes with a condition.

Some people think that politicians are responsible for keeping the republic. But Franklin spoke to an ordinary citizen – a woman, who did not even have the right to vote. The lesson is that everyone is responsible.

When I was drafting these remarks last night, my daughter showed me an essay she wrote about a time when she asked me a question and referred to the government as “they.” And I replied, “Who are they?” They are us. The people are the government. This is a participatory activity.

I have worked with law enforcement professionals for three decades. Some of them do the job for the money, but most are inspired by the realization that they are the government, a calling that we recognize as patriotism.

At the Department of Justice, our patriotic mission is to promote the rule of law.

The term “rule of law” describes the government’s obligation to follow neutral principles. The idea dates at least to the fourth century BC, when Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote that “[i]t is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens.”

Last year, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation explaining that “we govern ourselves in accordance with the rule of law rather [than] … the whims of an elite few or the dictates of collective will. Through law, we have ensured liberty.”

As the President recognized, law provides the framework for freedom. At its best, law reflects moral choices; principled decisions that promote society’s best interests, and protect citizens’ fundamental rights. That is the point of the Penn motto: “Leges sine moribus vanae.” Laws without morals are useless.

The rule of law is indispensable to a thriving and vibrant society. It shields citizens from government overreach. It allows businesses to invest with confidence. It gives innovators protection for their discoveries. It keeps people safe from dangerous criminals. And it allows us to resolve differences peacefully through reason and logic.

When you follow the law, it does not always yield the outcome you would choose. In fact, one indicator that you are following the law is when you respect a result although you do not agree with it. You respect it because it is dictated by the facts and the law.

Abraham Lincoln discussed the issue in his first published speech, in 1838. Lincoln worried about sharp political divisions and rising passions in our young republic. He argued that respect for the law is essential to bind society together.

“Let reverence for the laws,” he implored, “be breathed by every American [parent] . . . let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacks — let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.”

And, Lincoln concluded, “let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions” keep the rule of law.

Two decades later, in 1858, Lincoln engaged in a series of seven lengthy debates with his Senate opponent, Stephen Douglas. The opening speaker addressed the audience for one hour. The other speaker took an hour and a half to reply. Then the first debater spent another half hour to respond.

People disagreed – sometimes vehemently – but they listened patiently, and they learned about opposing arguments.

Attention spans are much shorter today. The structural protections that preserve liberty are difficult to explain in a soundbite. But it remains essential for citizens to understand them. Our system of government is not self-executing. Liberty is protected by cultural norms as well as by constitutional text.

Theodore Roosevelt observed that a government’s survival depends on the character of citizens. He said that “[t]he average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed.”

Many of you will hold leadership roles in the private sector. Even if you never serve in government, you will be responsible for supporting the law, even when it is difficult, or costly.

A scholar once described the legal system as “wise restraints that make men free.” Law provides the framework for people to conduct their lives freely and enter into transactions with confidence. Business depends on law. It provides the floor that supports the market, and the walls around it.

The integrity and reliability of the financial system rests on the credibility of the legal system. Our economy attracts investors because they expect fair treatment in our courts. And investors and consumers are more confident when they know that the Department of Justice will protect them from fraud.

White collar crime skews the playing field for law-abiding competitors. It erodes confidence that hard work, discipline, and talent lead to success.

Some people mistakenly describe white-collar crime as victimless. The damage is not always obvious, but financial fraud, bribery, corruption, price-fixing, insider trading – all those crimes harm people.

Prosecutions are an important deterrent to crime, but strong corporate compliance programs are the first line of defense.

That is why the Department of Justice should reward companies that try in good faith to deter crime – those that voluntarily implement meaningful compliance programs. When crimes occur, good corporate citizens investigate it, report it to the authorities, cooperate in investigations, and implement appropriate remedies.

Law enforcement agencies should give the greatest consideration to companies that establish effective compliance programs, because it frees our agents and prosecutors to focus on people who commit more serious financial crimes or pose other threats to America.

During my tenure as Deputy Attorney General, we updated Department policies to reflect those principles and to create stronger incentives to uphold the law.

We also completed a comprehensive review and streamlining of other Department guidance. Our team executed a strategy to maximize the impact of our $28 billion budget and 115,000 employees. We consulted stakeholders, revised policies, and used results-driven management to build morale, cut bureaucracy, and increase efficiency. Our productivity increased more in 2018 than ever before, and crime fell.

Changes within large organizations can be difficult. But the ability to adapt to change is essential. A distinguished Wharton alumnus, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, coined the term “anti-fragile” to describe the most successful business model. According to Taleb, the opposite of fragility is not merely robustness or resiliency. Anti-fragile things do not just bounce back. They grow stronger, like muscles.

Complacency can be deadly. Taleb tells a story that illustrates the danger of forgetting that past performance is never a reliable indicator of future outcomes: “Consider a turkey that is fed every day. Every … feeding [strengthens] the bird’s [confidence] that it is the general rule of life [that humans always] ‘look… out for its best interests’ …. On the … [day] before Thanksgiving, something unexpected will happen to the turkey.” Taleb refers to that as a “Black Swan” event – a occurrence so low in probability that we ignore the risk, but so great in impact that it renders projections meaningless.

Corporations need to prepare for unexpected events, but government should provide certainty when possible.

That principle underlies my approach to corporate liability. Companies can be held legally responsible for criminal acts by their employees, but that is not always the most reasonable outcome. In our Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases, we established a policy that incentivizes exemplary corporate conduct. Companies that self-report violations, cooperate with investigations, and remediate harm are rewarded with a presumption that we will decline to pursue the company with criminal charges. Instead, we focus our limited resources on companies that fail to take compliance obligations seriously.

We also changed our individual accountability policies to recognize differences between criminal and civil corporate enforcement matters.

The most effective deterrent to most crimes is identifying and punishing the individuals who engaged in criminal activity. But civil cases are different. The primary goal of affirmative civil enforcement cases is to recover money, so we revised our policy to permit us to negotiate civil releases for individuals when obtaining damages from individual employees is not feasible.

That allows us to resolve matters and provide certainty to companies and their employees when the resolution achieves the government’s objectives. There is no reason to delay a settlement that favorably resolves civil claims only because of a bureaucratic prohibition on releasing individuals we would not sue anyway.

At the Department of Justice, we work to encourage good corporate citizenship and deter fraud. I encourage you to do your part. Embrace change, adapt to new circumstances, but always emphasize your commitment to the rule of law.

Speaking of change, technological developments pose significant law enforcement challenges, because people who create and market new tools often do not consider the implications for public safety.

Electronic devices collect and transmit tremendous amounts of information about their customers. Many users do not understand that the companies use that data for commercial advantage. And all users are vulnerable when hackers steal data.

Then there are social media platforms, which provide unprecedented opportunities for the free exchange of ideas. But many people do not realize how they are exploited by malicious actors who deceive them.

Soon, we will need to come to terms with “deep fake” videos, which may defeat our ability to rely on things that we see and hear directly.

The speed and volume of technological advances exceeds the capacity of most people to comprehend the risks, let alone to protect against them.

Criminals are early adopters. They will deploy smarter, adaptive malware capable of thwarting existing defenses. They will use impenetrable communications platforms that defeat our ability to detect and prevent crimes.

Forestalling those ominous consequences will require concrete steps.

First, innovators should place security on the same footing as novelty and convenience, and design technology accordingly, in the same way that we build automobiles with horns, emergency lights, seatbelts and airbags; we equip ships with lifeboats and floatation devices; and we construct high-rise buildings with sprinklers and fire escapes. Anticipating worst-case scenarios must be part of the development process.

Second, we need companies to work cooperatively with law enforcement agencies to address novel risks.

The trajectory that we are on now – a culture in which some technology companies work to defeat legitimate law enforcement activities – will not end well. Protecting honest people from being harmed by criminals is a worthy endeavor, but protecting criminals from being caught imposes a heavy cost.

To return to my theme: upholding the law is not the job of government alone. It depends on countless decisions citizens make as they go about their lives. That is why it is so difficult to reform corrupt foreign governments. You cannot just adopt a Constitution. It only works in tandem with a culture of honesty, fairness, and integrity.

My time as a law enforcement official is coming to an end, a lot later than I expected. People joke about the revolving door between government and the private sector. The door never revolved for me. It was one way in, and one way out.

Thirty-five years ago – when I was sitting in your chairs – if I used my Wharton education and my HP-12C calculator to compute the net present value of my likely career, I would have taken a different path. My first law enforcement job paid less than half of a private law firm salary. My wife reminds me that the gap grows each year. But the noble mission of the Department of Justice inspires me every day. The rewards are difficult to measure in monetary terms.

When you study anyone’s career, there usually appears to be an obvious logic to their path. Each person was in the right place, at the right time, to take advantage of the next opportunity. But that appearance of logic is always wrong. It is a product of hindsight bias, the tendency to see a pattern in retrospect that never exists in real time.

The truth is that everyone’s life is a product of random events and consequential decisions. The random events are things that happen to you, beyond your control. The consequential decisions are what you choose to do in response.

I hope many of you will choose to devote at least a few years to public service. If you do, remember that truth is not determined by opinion polls, and history is not written by television pundits. Ignore the mercenary critics and focus on the things that matter, because a republic that endures for centuries is not governed by the news cycle.

I am proud of what the Department of Justice accomplished on my watch in the Trump Administration. We made rapid progress in achieving the Administration’s law enforcement priorities – reducing violent crime, enhancing support for the police, curtailing opioid abuse, protecting consumers, and restoring immigration enforcement – while preserving national security, and strengthening federal efforts in many other areas. Our nation is safer, elections are more secure, and citizens are better informed about covert foreign influence efforts and schemes to commit fraud, steal intellectual property, and launch cyberattacks.

In 1940, Attorney General Robert Jackson explained that government lawyers “must at times risk ourselves and our records to defend our legal processes from discredit, and to maintain a dispassionate, disinterested, and impartial enforcement of the law,” even if it requires us to incur criticism.

I took more than my fair share of criticism. But I kept the faith, I followed the rules, and I left my office in good hands. Those are the things that matter.

So let me conclude with advice that a legendary Philadelphian, Rocky Balboa, gave to his son: “The world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows…. But it ain’t about how hard you hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward; how much you can take, and keep moving forward… [Y]ou got to be willing to take the hits.”

My daughter inscribed that on a plaque and gave it to me as a birthday gift, so I know she got the point. I hope you get it, too.

Thank you very much.

quote:

Op vrijdag 1 maart 2019 20:14 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:
Binnenkort zal Mueller moeten gaan uitleggen dat er geen bewijs voor collusion is gevonden, maar dat dat niet wil zeggen dat die er niet was, want Trump is vast goed in het uitwissen van zijn sporen!

quote:

Op vrijdag 1 maart 2019 21:25 schreef Foppe1986II het volgende:

[..]

En toen was ik gestopt met lezen... Geen samenwerking Russen en Trump? Wat een lachertje..
Sommige mensen hier zijn ziende blind en horende doof, dat is wel duidelijk.
Of ze hebben hetzelfde IQ als Trump, dat is ook goed mogelijk.

twitter:

renato_mariotti twitterde op vrijdag 01-03-2019 om 17:02:20 Mueller's report will almost certainly disappoint you, and it's not his fault. It's your fault for buying into Trump's false narrative that it is Mueller's' job to prove "collusion," a nearly impossible bar for any prosecutor to clear.My piece in @TIME: https://t.co/VQ2WhhC996 reageer retweet

twitter:

tedlieu twitterde op zondag 03-03-2019 om 16:22:42 Unlike the narrow scope of Mueller's investigation, the House Judiciary's oversight mission is broad: did @POTUS committ ANY crimes or misconduct? Our investigation will either exonerate Trump, or it won't. We will follow the facts wherever it may take us.#SundayMotivation https://t.co/j8h8ZOv8pJ reageer retweet

Devin Nunes Drops Bomb on Mueller - Used Hillary Oppo Research to Launch Witch Hunt

Jerrold Naddler -and other Democrats- turning on Robert Mueller

quote:

Op zondag 3 maart 2019 22:01 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Clipje van het interview van van vandaag van Devin Nunes bij Maria Bartiromo over het samenspannen tussen de Hillary Clinton campagne en de media.

"The bottom line is that everything that was in that Dossier, all the accusations that were made -there was tweets from the Hillary campaign press releases from the Hillary campaign- It was all nonsense. It was stuff they were feeding into the press -the press was writing about it, they were tweeting it out and promoting it- they were all in on it."

Devin Nunes on HRC/MSM collusion

En dit niet alleen. Het Russa collusion delusion narratief werd ook via de FBI gevoerd aan de media. Dit is bekend geworden via het OIG rapport van Micheal Horowiz.

[ afbeelding ]

bron

Btw via de bron is in de bijlagen G en H hiervan een visueel overzicht te zien.

quote:

Op maandag 4 maart 2019 09:11 schreef dellipder het volgende:

[..]

Ted Lieu heeft helemaal geen nieuwe informatie over de zogenaamde scope memo -de reden waarom de special counsel werd ingesteld. De DoJ weigert om de documenten hierover vrij te geven.
Informatie over de scope memo wordt gegeven in onderstaande clipje:

Devin Nunes Drops Bomb on Mueller - Used Hillary Oppo Research to Launch Witch Hunt

Hoe Ted Lieu het zich toch kan permitteren uitspraken te doen over de reikwijdte is beyond me, maar het is wel duidelijk dat hieraan te zien is dat de Democrats zich tegen Robert Mueller en Rod Rosenstein aan het keren zijn.
Een ander voorbeeld hiervan:

Jerrold Naddler -and other Democrats- turning on Robert Mueller

quote:

Op dinsdag 5 maart 2019 13:35 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:

Michael Cohen Admits He's Working With Democrats To Trash President Trump

Dit is echt bizar - leugenaar Cohen heeft voorafgaand aan de getuigenis gesproken met oa Cummings, Schiff, en anderen van de DNC. Zijn advocaat is Lanny Davis, advocaat van de Clintons

quote:

Op dinsdag 5 maart 2019 13:44 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:
[..]

Je klinkt een beetje viesmad, maar, als Trump zo onschuldig is als een pasgeboren kind, zoals hij altijd zelf zegt te zijn, dan is er toch allemaal niks aan de hand voor Trump?

quote:

Op dinsdag 5 maart 2019 13:57 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:
[..]

Jij vind het niet vreemd dat een belangrijke getuige van de House Oversight Committee van te voren geinstrueerd blijkt te zijn door de voorzitter van datzelfde comitee en DNC-bobo's die willens en wetens een verkeerd beeld van Trump willen neerzetten op basis van leugens en verdraaide feiten?

quote:

Op dinsdag 5 maart 2019 14:12 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:
[..]

Welke leugens en welke verdraaide feiten?

Cohen Kills Collusion Conspiracy Theory