It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ex-FBI Director James Comey officially under DOJ review (since January - bet you missed that??)

page: 2
69
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Interesting. So this started before Tump took office. Wasn't a directive from him. Wonder if it will come up in the hearing/




posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Sublimecraft


Bzzzz, wrong - this ain't in the public domain yet, it's my take on things but it will (hopefully) be more public after today as I've sent a message to Mike Cernovich and Stefan Molyneux to address it more vigorously.


Just out of curiosity, has infowars ever published a lead that you have sent them?

If so that's pretty cool, especially because you're not American.


Sessions was asked about it yesterday. This isn't a surprise to anyone who paid attention...



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu


Is it normal practice to not notify an employee if he's under review?


No more normal than neglecting to notify the public that the sitting POTUS is not under investigation.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   
There sure is a lot of corruption in Washington DC. Can't we just build a wall around DC to keep those people locked up instead of putting one between the US and Mexico, I actually think the people in DC may be more of a threat to national security than Mexicans. Maybe if we build that wall to hold water, there won't be so many leaks.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

When Sublime shares I listen, all new members make note of this guy and listen/follow all his stuff... smart man right here



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: jhn7537

This guy has ALL my flags!



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Why wasn't that part of the questions in his hearings? Is the SIC just incompetent or what is going on? It sure looks like a purge is needed in all government branches. The sad thing is Obama did absolutely nothing to curb the corruption. I guess he was a part of the problem too. Trump was right DC is a cesspool.




posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft




posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Your post made my day!
You could start a petition.
I'll sign it.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

Actually yes, I've had to do that several times during my career.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Wth why didnt anybody ask him that when he testified? Its all just a big circlejerk



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom
nono that will not do lets call it a summer formal prizes are either pair of matching steel cuffs an orange jumper with a room with a metal toilet /hooch brewery or immunity and you disappear off the continet into witsec.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Link?
Warn people of a pdf download!!!!!
edit on 6152017 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Wow no one wants a link.
Just accept this as genuine?
OP where did you get this?



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

No one wants a link because they can navigate URLs

oig.justice.gov...

Scroll down to January 12, 2017 release.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Ok I found an actual news link about this.

And umm guys...this review was under the Obama administration.
Not a review ordered by trump or his admin.
And it was an internal review on how he handled his "she's not guilty but I'm going to publicly indict her anyway" speech.

www.politico.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Ok I found an actual news link about this.

And umm guys...this review was under the Obama administration.
Not a review ordered by trump or his admin.
And it was an internal review on how he handled his "she's not guilty but I'm going to publicly indict her anyway" speech.

www.politico.com...


It's actually reviewing a whole bunch of things. From the WaPo article:

The Justice Department inspector general will review broad allegations of misconduct involving FBI Director James B. Comey and how he handled the probe of Hillary Clinton’s email practices , the inspector general announced Thursday.


The investigation will be wide-ranging, encompassing Comey’s various letters and public statements on the matter and whether FBI or other Justice Department employees leaked nonpublic information, according to Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz.


Horowitz said Thursday that he will explore the circumstances surrounding the actions of Comey and others


Horowitz wrote that his inquiry will extend back to at least July — when Comey announced he was recommending the Clinton case be closed without charges.


He wrote that he will explore “allegations that Department and FBI employees improperly disclosed non-public information” — potentially a reference to Giuliani, who seemed to claim at one point he had insider FBI knowledge. Horowitz also said he would explore whether FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe should have been recused from the case. McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, ran for a Virginia Senate seat and took money from the political action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a fierce Clinton ally.


I will also note:

Notably absent from the list of matters being considered is Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch’s controversial meeting in June with former president Clinton aboard her plane on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport.


However, this was January. A number of things have come to light since then, such as Comey's testimony that Lynch ordered him to use Clinton campaign rhetoric in official statements. The IG has the latitude to take the investigation into other areas if the facts lead him there. I would not be surprised if they're investigating Lynch at this point as well.

It really has nothing to do with either administration. The IG determined he needed to investigate, and he doesn't need the President's permission to do so, whether it was Obama or Trump in office at the time. He will look into any and all wrongdoing that may be linked to the handling of the Clinton investigation. It should also be noted the IG can't file charges against anyone, he will simply issue a report. However, the DOJ can at that point file charges based on his findings, if they feel it is necessary.
edit on 16 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Interesting. So this started before Tump took office. Wasn't a directive from him. Wonder if it will come up in the hearing/


a reply to: Sillyolme

The review is being done by the OIG, who is nominated by the President and whom works for / answers to Congress. It is a part of Congressional oversight. The OIG investigation was announced before Trump was sworn in and was initiated by one of the Congressional committees. Their position / findings helps Congress determine what, if any, changes are needed to prevent the system from failing while also determining if laws were violated / criminal activity is present.

The OIG has 73 offices and are assigned to each executive agency. They are independent of each other but can share info from their investigations / findings with each office.

The OIG has been known to go after whistle-blowers (not leakers but they do investigate those to) so they are a mixed bag.
edit on 16-6-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

OIG does go after whistleblowers but only under certain circumstances. Every agency has established channels through which you're supposed to report improper or illegal activity in your agency. The Inspector General of your agency is actually one of those channels. That's whistleblowing. Just taking it to the press and exposing a bunch of classified info on your own accord is not whistleblowing and it's not protected under the law. If you reported it to the OIG, they investigate it, determine if a crime is indeed happening, and if it is they will report that to the appropriate level, such as the agency head or to a congressional committee. They do so in a manner that protects classified information, and sometimes certain elements are made known to the public, sometimes they're not. That's up to the agency or the committee to decide. It's not up to the individual who discovered the improper activity to decide what the public needs or doesn't need to know, ala a Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Xcathdra

OIG does go after whistleblowers but only under certain circumstances. Every agency has established channels through which you're supposed to report improper or illegal activity in your agency. The Inspector General of your agency is actually one of those channels. That's whistleblowing. Just taking it to the press and exposing a bunch of classified info on your own accord is not whistleblowing and it's not protected under the law. If you reported it to the OIG, they investigate it, determine if a crime is indeed happening, and if it is they will report that to the appropriate level, such as the agency head or to a congressional committee. They do so in a manner that protects classified information, and sometimes certain elements are made known to the public, sometimes they're not. That's up to the agency or the committee to decide. It's not up to the individual who discovered the improper activity to decide what the public needs or doesn't need to know, ala a Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden.


What he said is correct.

If you have questions or doubts, the OIG of your department is the very first place you start. Not with leaking to the press.
edit on R132017-06-16T22:13:59-05:00k136Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)







 
69
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join