It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


U.S. federal agencies refuse to testify about OPM hack

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:20 PM

Officials from the U.S. government's personnel agency unexpectedly refused on Tuesday to attend a closed-door congressional briefing on their handling of a massive computer breach that affected more than 22 million federal workers.


According to the House Armed Services Committee, the Office of Personnel Management, where the very breech took place, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget, all declined to appear at a classified meeting with concerns that the conversation would be transcribed. My first thought was, wouldn't the transcription be classified as well?

Thornberry said his panel has had no problems safeguarding classified materials, suggesting that may have been OPM's and the other agencies' concern. "We do it every day (with) things that are a lot more highly classified than this," he said.

Yeah, that's what I thought. The federal agencies went on to add that they've already engaged in more than a dozen classified briefings and open hearings and that they were unable to accommodate a last minute change in the requests made for Tuesday.

“If they are unwilling to come and answer questions about the biggest national security data breach we've ever had, then that does not inspire greater confidence,” Thornberry said. “So I'm sure we will pursue the matter with them again.”

Adam Smith, you just might be a genius! Sadly though, you are too gutless to call any of them out. Saying that you're are “disappointed” (why paraphrase it, lol), by their withdrawal has already passed like a fart in the wind. Do I need to remind you that former OPM Director Katherine Archuleta resigned last July due to the agency’s controversial security practices? Obama has appointed Beth Cobert, OPM's acting director, to lead the agency in her place. Guess what burning ship she's jumping off of?

Obama sent Cobert to OPM from her previous dual role as the Office of Management and Budget’s deputy director for management and the U.S. chief performance officer.

That's right, The same federal office that has refused to further testify! Both the Department of Defense and members of the U.S. intelligence community were present, what gives? I'm sick of these bastards disregarding the same system they use to run us into the ground. Pieces of crap.

Does anyone have an opinion about why these three federal agencies declined? What are they trying to avoid and/or who are they trying to protect?

edit on 17-11-2015 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:28 PM
Nobody wants to go on record. It's a lot harder to lie later when they have you on video.

ETA - Of course, I don't know why that would matter now. Never has before.
edit on 17-11-2015 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:34 PM
a reply to: eisegesis

They know who it was.
Maybe they're saying nothing because certain agreements were signed after the attack?

posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:59 PM
a reply to: DAVID64

Nobody wants to go on record. It's a lot harder to lie later when they have you on video.

There technically shouldn't be a reason to lie. Their attempts to stifle any further discussion leads me to believe they either allowed it to happen or the breech was facilitated by their negligence. If you did everything you could to prevent the attack, why wouldn't you be as transparent as possible?

new topics

top topics

log in