JOHN BRENNAN'S SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED BY TRUMP (NO LONGER NEEDED)

JOHN BRENNAN'S SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED BY TRUMP:

SINCE BRENNAN IS NO LONGER EMPLOYED WITH CIA WHY DOES HE STILL NEED HIS CLEARANCE?

TRUMP IS CORRECT TO REVOKE CLEARANCES OF FORMER GOVT OFFICIALS WHO ABUSE THEIR PRIVILEGE.

SECURITY CLEARANCES SHOULD NOT BE USED TO SPY ON OR INTIMIDATE OTHER CITIZENS UNLESS TO STOP TERRORISM.

TRUMP IS A MAN OF HIS WORD.


Post Sources: ABC News, Fox News, Washington Post, Youtube


******** Trump revokes security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan — a leading critic of the president


President Trump on Wednesday followed through on threats to strip the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan, igniting a firestorm of criticism that the president was recklessly attempting to distract from his own political problems and silence high-profile critics.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced the decision at a White House briefing, reading a statement from Trump that accused Brennan of making “a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations — wild outbursts on the internet and television — about this Administration.”

Brennan, who led the CIA during most of President Barack Obama’s second term, has emerged as one of Trump’s fiercest critics, denouncing his performance at a summit with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin last month as “treasonous.” On Tuesday, Brennan lambasted Trump’s personal character after he derided former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman as a “dog.”

“Any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with Mr. Brennan are now outweighed by the risk posed by his erratic conduct and behavior,” Trump said in his statement. “Mr. Brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.”

Trump added that he is reviewing the security clearances of nine other former officials, including former FBI director James B. Comey, all of whom have criticized the president or been targeted by congressional Republicans seeking to discredit the Russia probe.

The move sent shock waves through Washington’s political class and the nation’s intelligence community, which has traditionally sought to avoid public partisanship but has been dragged into the debate as Trump has accused what he calls the “deep state” of seeking to undermine his presidency through leaks of sensitive material.

The president also has lashed out repeatedly against the ongoing investigation led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III into possible contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives accused of tampering in the 2016 presidential election.

Brennan was a longtime intelligence official who briefed three presidents and served as CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, CIA chief of staff, director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism.

His former colleagues rallied to his defense, hailing his service to the nation, including a key role in the 2011 operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

In a tweet Wednesday, former vice president Joe Biden said Trump’s decision was “unbecoming of a President” and praised Brennan as someone who “has never been afraid to speak up.”

“If you think it will silence John, then you just don’t know the man,” he wrote.

Brennan reacted to the news by comparing Trump’s actions to those of “foreign despots and autocrats.”

“I never, ever thought I’d see it here in the United States,” Brennan said on MSNBC. “I believe all Americans need to take stock of what is happening right now in our government — how abnormal and how irresponsible and how dangerous these actions are. If Mr. Trump believes this is going to lead me to just go away and be quiet, he is very badly mistaken.”

Sanders cast Trump’s decision as the outcome of an ongoing review of former and current officials whose conduct has led the president to question their willingness to “protect classified information.”

But since aides first raised the specter of Trump’s stripping Brennan and several others of their clearances, security experts have described such a move as unprecedented and warned that words and actions protected by the First Amendment are not grounds to take a clearance away.

“As far as we know, this is the first time that a president of the United States has individually taken action against somebody’s security clearance,” said Mark Zaid, an attorney who represents government employees in security-clearance disputes.

Last month, the White House said that along with Brennan and Comey, the president was scrutinizing former CIA director Michael V. Hayden, former national security adviser Susan E. Rice, former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.

On Wednesday, Sanders expanded that list to include former acting attorney general Sally Q. Yates, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, former FBI agent Peter Strzok and Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, who was recently demoted.

Yates was fired by Trump last year after she defied the president and ordered federal attorneys not to defend his controversial travel ban. Strzok and Page, two of Trump’s favorite targets on Twitter, became the centerpiece of Republicans’ efforts to discredit Mueller’s Russia probe after anti-Trump texts between the two were revealed last year. Strzok was fired over the texts this week.

Ohr is also a frequent object of GOP criticism; he was named by Republicans in a memo earlier this year that targeted his ties to the former British intelligence officer who wrote the controversial dossier on the Trump campaign’s alleged contacts with Russian officials.

The timing of the announcement suggested that the president may also have been trying to distract public attention from saturation media coverage of accusations in Manigault Newman’s new book that Trump made racist statements before he took office that were captured on tape.

After Sanders’s briefing Wednesday, the White House released the written statement from Trump bearing the date July 26 — before quickly releasing an identical statement with the date removed. That led some of Trump’s critics to conclude that he had made the decision on Brennan’s security clearance weeks ago but that the White House strategically delayed an announcement for maximum political benefit.

“This might be a convenient way to distract attention, say from a damaging news story or two,” Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) said on Twitter. “But politicizing the way we guard our nation’s secrets just to punish the President’s critics is a dangerous precedent.”

Some Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), applauded Trump’s move. In a statement, Paul sought to take credit for the idea of revoking Brennan’s clearance.

“I urged the President to do this,” Paul said. “I filibustered Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA in 2013, and his behavior in government and out of it demonstrate why he should not be allowed near classified information.”

Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian, called Trump’s action unprecedented, saying he knew of no historical example of a president’s trying to “dehumanize and embarrass an outstanding intelligence officer like John Brennan. There has always been a bipartisan spirit of support since the CIA was created in the Cold War.”

Brinkley suggested that the closest antecedent was President Richard Nixon’s attempts to use the Internal Revenue Service to harass people on his “enemies list” and Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s congressional hearings to try to identify and punish suspected communists inside the U.S. government in the 1950s.

“The public outcry of Brennan being stripped will echo long and far in the annals of American history,” Brinkley said. “It will be seen like McCarthyism — a dark stain on our democracy.”

Nearly 4.1 million Americans have federal government security clearances of varying levels up to “top secret,” according to government estimates. In some cases, former officials retain their clearances and are called on to provide advice or input on classified or highly sensitive matters, experts said. Some former officials also have jobs that require a security clearance.

It is not clear how much of an impact Trump will have if he seeks to strip others of their clearances. Comey and McCabe have said their security badges were automatically demagnetized after they were fired.

But the action was the latest in a long battle between Trump and top members of the intelligence and national security communities. During the 2016 campaign, a bipartisan group of national security experts, including Hayden, signed a pair of “Never Trump” letters asserting that he “lacks self-control and acts impetuously,” has demonstrated “erratic behavior” and is “fundamentally dishonest.”

Since taking office, Trump has faced criticism that he has been reckless in his own handling of sensitive information, including disclosing highly classified material during an Oval Office meeting last year with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador to the United States. And at his Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, Trump appeared to discuss the U.S. response to a North Korean missile launch in full view of patrons.

Questions also have been raised about Trump’s staff, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose security clearance was downgraded in February before he was granted a permanent clearance in May. Former White House staff secretary Rob Porter was granted clearance despite allegations that he had been violent toward two ex-wives, which he has denied.

“This is not merely erratic, it’s somewhat dangerous, using clearances to get at political opponents,” Eliot Cohen, a former State Department counselor during the George W. Bush administration who organized one of the “Never Trump” letters, said of the president’s decision on Brennan.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on Twitter that Trump’s move demonstrates “how deeply insecure and vindictive he is — two character flaws dangerous in any President.”

“An enemies list is ugly, undemocratic and un-American. I also believe this action to silence a critic is unlawful,” Schiff said in a tweet.

Republican reactions were more muted. Last month, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) minimized Trump’s threats, suggesting that the president was merely “trolling people.” Ryan’s office declined to comment Wednesday.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who, after tangling with Trump on foreign policy issues, is not seeking reelection called the president’s action a “banana republic kind of step.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Brennan has been “far too political” in his commentary about Trump. But she added that recently retired intelligence officials generally have worthwhile expertise to offer and called Trump’s move “unwise.”

SECURITY CLEARANCES REVOKED vs FAKE RUSSIA RUINED 2016 ELECTION THEORIES

SECURITY CLEARANCES REVOKED vs FAKE RUSSIA RUINED 2016 ELECTION THEORIES:

WHY DO YOU STILL NEED A TOP SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCE IF YOU ARE NO LONGER A DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE OR NO LONGER AN FBI DIRECTOR??

WHY DO FORMER FED GOVT OFFICIALS WHO ARE NOW PRIVATE CITIZENS, STILL NEED TOP SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCES?

SECURITY CLEARANCES SHOULD NOT BE USED TO SPY ON POLITICIANS, PRIVATE CITIZENS OR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

SECURITY CLEARANCE PRIVILEGES SHOULD NOT BE SOLD FOR PARTISAN POLITICS.

SECURITY CLEARANCES SHOULD NOT BE USED TO CORRUPT THE U.S. GOVT VIA FALSE INFORMATION.

REVOKING SECURITY CLEARANCES DOES NOT VIOLATE FIRST AMENDMENT, IT’S PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

EACH ELECTED U.S. PRESIDENT HAS LEGAL DISCRETION TO GRANT OR REVOKE SECURITY CLEARANCES.


Post Sources: Washington Times, Politico, Fox News, Youtube


****** Trump threatens to revoke Obama officials' security clearances


President Trump threatened Monday to revoke security clearance from top Obama administration officials who have fanned the flames of Russian collusion conspiracy theories, a retaliation by the White House that legal scholars said would be unprecedented but not illegal.

On the president’s security clearance hit list are former CIA Director John O. Brennan, former Director of National Security James R. Clapper, former FBI Director James B. Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former National Security Adviser Susan E. Rice and National Security Agency Director Michael V. Hayden, said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

“They’ve politicized and in some cases actually monetized their public service security clearances,” she said. “Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russiaagainst the president is extremely inappropriate.”

Former intelligence officials typically keep their high-level security clearances after leaving government jobs and sometimes provide informal advice to current officials.

These six officials publicly leveled accusations of criminal wrongdoing — including treason — against Mr. Trump in frequent TV news appearances.

Several also pocket paychecks for doing it.

‌
Mr. Brennan is a paid analyst for NBC News and MSNBC. Mr. Clapper and Mr. Hayden are paid analysts for CNN.

Mr. Clapper also is suspected of leaking to CNN in January 2017 information about the anti-Trump dossier that helped spur the FBI’s Russia collusion investigation.

Mr. Brennan took several jabs at the president last week after his meeting in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???” he tweeted.

Mrs. Sanders said the president thinks top-security clearance for former officials who make “these baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence.”

Sean M. Bigley, a lawyer specializing in security clearance cases, said the president was in uncharted territory but as commander in chief had carte blanche authority to revoke security clearances.

“There is nothing legally that would preclude the president from taking that action,” he said.

What’s more, the only recourse to challenge a security clearance revocation is through an administrative appeal process that the president could deny, said Mr. Bigley.

The president’s opponents in Washington quickly accused him of politicizing security clearances.

Mr. Clapper responded on CNN, “It’s kind of a sad commentary, where for political reasons, this is kind of a petty way of retribution, I suppose, for speaking out against the president.”

He said all of the former officials have been speaking “out of genuine concerns about President Trump.”

Others called it an attack on free speech.


Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who has spearheaded accusations of Trump campaign collusion with Russia, said the president had set “a terrible new precedent.”

“An enemies list is ugly, undemocratic and un-American. Is there no length Trump will not go to stifle opposition? Wake up GOP,” Mr. Schiff tweeted.

“This is what totalitarianism looks like,” tweeted Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii Democrat.

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, raised the idea of targeting Mr. Brennan’s security clearance in a tweet early Monday and later presented the suggestion to Mr. Trump in a meeting at the White House.

Mr. Paul has been one of the most vocal defenders of Mr. Trump’s performance at the Helsinki meeting, and Mr. Brennan has been one of the loudest critics.

“Public officials should not use their security clearances to leverage speaking fees or network talking head fees,” Mr. Paul tweeted.

The White House announcement followed Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. Paul.

The unusual circumstances engulfing Mr. Trump’s presidency made the scrutiny clearance threat “very appropriate,” said David K. Rehr, a scholar of Washington politics at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government.

He said that all of the Obama intelligence officials on the list had their fingers in the Trump collusion conspiracy and now had a financial incentive to promote the conspiracy theories.

“People need to know that if they are public servants that they are public servants and not servants of political campaigns,” he said.

Mrs. Sanders rejected the accusation that the president was seeking to punish the former officials for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.

“The president doesn’t like the fact that people are politicizing agencies and departments that are specifically meant to not be political and not meant to be monetized off of security clearances,” she said. “When you’re the person that holds the nation’s deepest, most-sacred secrets at your hands, and you go out and you make false accusations against the president of the United States, he thinks that is something to be very concerned with, and we’re exploring what those options are and what that looks like.”

The politicizing of security clearances and the security clearance process is not entirely new to Washington.

Democrats pounced on the Trump White House for the slow pace of security clearance approval for top aides such as Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Republicans in the House and Senate introduced legislation to strip Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton of her security clearance over use of a secret email account and email server for official business as secretary of state.


Mrs. Clinton also came under fire from Republicans for arranging top-secret security clearance for her attorney David Kendall amid the email scandal.

Mr. McCabe lost his security clearance when he was fired as FBI deputy director in January.

“You would think the White House would check with the FBI before trying to throw shiny objects to the press corps,” said McCabe spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz.

Mr. Comey has been engaged in an escalating war of words with Mr. Trumpsince the president fired him in May 2017.

Ms. Rice said Sunday on a talk show that she didn’t know Mr. Trump’s motivations for seeking a better relationship with Russia, but “I think that’s a legitimate question.”

She called Mr. Trump’s one-on-one meeting with Mr. Putin “a historic mistake.”

As national security adviser under Mr. Obama, Ms. Rice was widely criticized for initially explaining the terrorist attack on U.S. personnel in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim video produced in the U.S. The performance prevented her from being nominated as secretary of state.

Mr. Clapper raised questions last August on CNN about Mr. Trump’s “ability to be — his fitness to be — in this office. I also am beginning to wonder about his motivation for it. Maybe he is looking for a way out.”

Mr. Hayden has published a book this year titled “The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies.” He said on CBS this spring of Mr. Trump, “We’ve had presidents who disagree with us; we’ve had presidents who lie. We’ve not had presidents for whom objective reality doesn’t seem to be compelling.”

Former House intelligence committee Chairman Mike Rogers, Alabama Republican, called Mr. Trump’s action petty.

“It’s certainly below the stature of the office of the president of the United States,” he said on CNN. “I just wish that the president would be bigger than that.”

He said of Mr. Brennan, “It’s also not customary for the former CIA director to be off the reservation where he is, either. I don’t think John Brennan should do it.”

OTTO WARMBIER - MOST LIKELY MURDERED BY N. KOREAN GOV'T (US RETALIATION??)

OTTO WARMBIER - MOST LIKELY MURDERED BY N. KOREAN GOV'T:

BUT WHY WAS HE OVER THERE ANYWAY?

N. KOREA CLAIMS OTTO WAS SPYING.

WILL THERE BE US RETALIATION?


Sources: Fox News, Youtube


**** Otto Warmbier dead: Trump condemns 'brutal' North Korea regime


President Trump slammed North Korea's "brutal regime" Monday after the death of college student Otto Warmbier, who was released by the communist nation in a coma last week.

"Lot of bad things happened," Trump said during a White House meeting with technology CEOs, “but at least we got him home to be with his parents."

"It's a brutal regime," Trump went on, "and we'll be able to handle it."

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the United States held North Korea accountable for Warmbier's "unjust imprisonment" and demanded that the country release three other Americans it is holding prisoner for alleged crimes against the state. The U.S. government has previously accused North Korea of using such detainees as political pawns.

Warmbier was held by North Korea for more than 17 months before he was medically evacuated June 13. He died Monday at University of Cincinnati Medical Center, near where he grew up in suburban Wyoming.

Warmbier’s family said in a statement that "the awful torturous mistreatment our son received at the hands of the North Koreans" meant that "no other outcome was possible beyond the sad one we experienced today."

In a written statement, Trump said that "Otto's fate deepens my Administration's determination to prevent such tragedies from befalling innocent people at the hands of regimes that do not respect the rule of law or basic human decency."

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who has led the charge for tougher sanctions on North Korea over its nuclear missile program, said "Countless innocent men and women have died at the hand of the North Korean criminals, but the singular case of Otto Warmbier touches the American heart like no other.

"While Otto Warmbier's memory will always be a blessing to his loved ones," Haley added, "it will also serve as an indelible reminder to us of the barbaric nature of the North Korean dictatorship."

Warmbier had traveled to North Korea as part of a tour group when he was detained at Pyongyang's airport in January 2016. The company that organized the trip, Young Pioneer Tours, announced after Warmbier's death that it would no longer organize tours of North Korea for U.S. citizens.

"The assessment of risk for Americans visiting North Korea has become too high," said the company, which has also offered tours to Iran, Iraq and former Soviet republicans and boasted of booking "budget tours to destinations your mother would rather you stayed away from."

The State Department warns against travel to North Korea, but does not explicitly forbid it. While nearly all Americans who have been there have left without incident, visitors can be suddenly seized and face lengthy incarceration for what might seem like minor infractions.

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, called for the U.S. to ban all tourist travel to North Korea.

"Travel propaganda lures far too many people to North Korea," Royce said. "This is a regime that regularly kidnaps foreign citizens and keeps 120,000 North Koreans in barbaric gulags."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Warmbier was "murdered by the [North Korean dictator] Kim Jong-un[sic] regime."

"In the final year of his life, he lived the nightmare in which the North Korean people have been trapped for 70 years: forced labor, mass starvation, systematic cruelty, torture, and murder," McCain said, later adding, "The United States of America cannot and should not tolerate the murder of its citizens by hostile powers."

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said North Korea should be "universally condemned for its abhorrent behavior.” He added that Warmbier’s family "had to endure more than any family should have to bear."

Ohio’s other senator, Democrat Sherrod Brown, said the country's "despicable actions ... must be condemned."

“Our hearts are broken for Otto’s family and everyone who knew and loved him,” Brown added.

The state's governor, John Kasich, described Warmbier as "a young man of exceptional spirit."

"This horrendous situation further underscores the evil, oppressive nature of the North Korean regime that has such disregard for human life," Kasich says.

SUSAN RICE'S MATA HARI SPYING ON TRUMP TEAM DETAILED & POLITICAL

SUSAN RICE'S SPYING ON TRUMP TEAM WAS EXTREMELY DETAILED & POLITICAL: (MATA HARI)

SPYING ON TRUMP IN 2016 HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH RUSSIA.

GOOGLE IS TRYING TO HIDE THIS STORY.

MANY AMERICANS & US SOLDIERS WERE SPIED ON UNDER OBAMA WHILE ISIL OPERATIVES HAD FREE REIGN.

IS CONGRESS AFRAID TO INVESTIGATE RICE BECAUSE SHE IS A BLACK WOMAN??

LET THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS BEGIN.


Sources: Fox News, The Federalist, Alex Jones, PBS, YouTube


****** Reports in unmasking controversy were detailed, had info about 'everyday lives'



The intelligence reports at the center of the Susan Rice unmasking controversy were detailed, and almost resembled a private investigator’s file, according to a Republican congressman familiar with the documents.


This is information about their everyday lives," Rep. Peter King of New York, a member of the House Intelligence committee said. "Sort of like in a divorce case where lawyers are hired, investigators are hired just to find out what the other person is doing from morning until night and then you try to piece it together later on.”

On the House Intelligence Committee, only the Republican chairman, Devin Nunes of California, and the ranking Democrat Adam Schiff, also of California, have personally reviewed the intelligence reports. Some members were given broad outlines.

Nunes has consistently stated that the files caused him deep concern because the unmasking went beyond the former national security adviser Mike Flynn, and the information was not related to Moscow.

Schiff said in a statement, “I cannot comment on the content of these materials or any other classified documents, and nothing should be inferred from the fact that I am treating classified materials the way they should be treated - by refusing to comment on them. Only the Administration has the power to declassify the information and make it available to the public."

Former National Security Adviser Rice is under scrutiny after allegations she sought to unmask the identities of Trump associates caught up in surveillance - such as phone calls between foreign intelligence targets. Rice denies ever having sought such information for political purposes and has defended her requests as routine.

But the most recent government data shows that unmasking or identifying Americans happens in a limited number of cases. The Office for the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the 17 intelligence agencies, said "...in 2015, NSA disseminated 4,290 FAA Section 702 intelligence reports that included U.S. person information. Of those 4,290 reports, the U.S. person information was masked in 3,168 reports and unmasked in 1,122 reports."

The report said "NSA is allowed to unmask the identity for the specific requesting recipient only under certain conditions and where specific additional controls are in place" and those conditions were met for "654 U.S. person identities" in 2015.

That means Americans were identified in 26 percent of the cases, or roughly one in four intelligence reports.

During his March 20 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, NSA director Admiral Mike Rogers said only 20 individuals within the agency are authorized to approve those requests.

“They receive specific training, there are specific controls put in place in terms of our ability to disseminate information out of the databases associated with U.S. persons,” Rogers said at the time. What it appears to suggest is that the NSA itself agreed that the instances in which Rice requested unmasking warranted that action.

FBI Director James Comey was less direct. "I don't know for sure. As I sit here, surely more, given the nature of the FBI's work," he testified.

"It would be nice to know the universe of people who have the power to unmask a U.S. citizen's name," South Carolina Republican congressman Trey Gowdy pressed. "Because that might provide something of a roadmap to investigate who might've actually disseminated a masked U.S. citizen's name."

Rice told NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell that the reports were requested by the Obama administration, which announced a probe into the Russian election hacking in early December. Two months earlier in October, before the election, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Homeland Security Department put out a joint statement about Moscow's interference.

Rice told Mitchell, "Fulfilling the president's request for such a report, they went back and scrubbed more reports. They began to provide more such reports to American officials, including myself."

Given the late fall timeline, it is not clear the intelligence reports Rice discussed during the NBC interview, are the same files reviewed by Nunes and Schiff.

Speaking to Fox News Wednesday, President Trump said he believed the former national security adviser may have committed a crime when she sought the identities of the Trump team members. The allegation was first reported by the New York Times.

While not commenting on the individual case, a former senior intelligence official explained the request must be approved by the NSA. Rice would have understood that there is an extensive government paper trail, that can be audited within the NSA, that shows who requested the unmasking, on what basis, and whether it was granted. This raises more questions about Rice, her motivation and whether it was authorized higher up, offering cover.

If approved, the former senior intelligence official said, only the requester, in this case Rice, would receive the information. Based on Fox News’ reporting, the information was shared beyond Rice, but it is not clear if those who received it had a “need to know.”

A spokeswoman for Rice, Erin Pelton, said in an email to the New York Times on Wednesday, “I’m not going to dignify the president’s ludicrous charge with a comment.” Pelton works for Mercury LLC, a crisis management firm.

At the height of the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack fallout, and questions about whether Rice and a former senior intelligence official had misled Congress about the role of an internet video in the deaths of four Americans, Mercury LLC was also tasked with handling the Fox News media inquiries.

SUSAN RICE: OBAMA'S #1 TRUMP INTEL SPY (UNMASKING)

SUSAN RICE WAS OBAMA'S #1 TRUMP INTEL SPY (UNMASKING):

OTHER OBAMA ADMIN EXECUTIVE CABINET LEADERS WERE ALSO INVOLVED.

THEY SHOULD ALL BE INVESTIGATED & JAILED FOR TREASON.


Sources: Fox News, Bloomberg News, Alex Jones, YouTube


**** Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say


Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance.

The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.

The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.

It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being posed by the sources late Monday.

"What I know is this ... If the intelligence community professionals decide that there’s some value, national security, foreign policy or otherwise in unmasking someone, they will grant those requests," former Obama State Department spokeswoman and Fox News contributor Marie Harf told Fox News' Martha MacCallum on "The First 100 Days." "And we have seen no evidence ... that there was partisan political notice behind this and we can’t say that unless there’s actual evidence to back that up."

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, asked about the revelations at Monday’s briefing, declined to comment specifically on what role Rice may have played or officials’ motives.

“I’m not going to comment on this any further until [congressional] committees have come to a conclusion,” he said, while contrasting the media’s alleged “lack” of interest in these revelations with the intense coverage of suspected Trump-Russia links.

When names of Americans are incidentally collected, they are supposed to be masked, meaning the name or names are redacted from reports – whether it is international or domestic collection, unless it is an issue of national security, crime or if their security is threatened in any way. There are loopholes and ways to unmask through backchannels, but Americans are supposed to be protected from incidental collection. Sources told Fox News that in this case, they were not.

This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas’ television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Meanwhile, Fox News also is told that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes knew about unmasking and leaking back in January, well before President Trump’s tweet in March alleging wiretapping.

Nunes has faced criticism from Democrats for viewing pertinent documents on White House grounds and announcing their contents to the press. But sources said “the intelligence agencies slow-rolled Nunes. He could have seen the logs at other places besides the White House SCIF [secure facility], but it had already been a few weeks. So he went to the White House because he could protect his sources and he could get to the logs.”

As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.

Rice is no stranger to controversy. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, she appeared on several Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration's later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.

Rice also told ABC News in 2014 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl "served the United States with honor and distinction" and that he "wasn't simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield."

Bergdahl is currently facing court-martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for allegedly walking off his post in Afghanistan.

FEDERAL CHILD SUPPORT SPIES ARE LOCAL MAIL CARRIERS IN CHARLOTTE, ATLANTA & CHICAGO

#‎Atlanta‬

FEDERAL CHILD SUPPORT SPIES ARE LOCAL MAIL CARRIERS:

IN CHARLOTTE, ATLANTA & CHICAGO.

* Discussion Highlights:

~ U.S. Mail Carriers have in fact teamed up with the Federal Govt to Spy on citizens.
Including Men who are working to catch up their Child Support payments.

~ US Mail Carriers working as SPIES is a growing problem in cities with a high BLACK Male UNEMPLOYMENT Rate such as CHARLOTTE, ATLANTA and CHICAGO.

~ Low Delinquent Child Support actual balances are being trumped to extremely high balances via State & County Fees which could be considered a CHILD SUPPORT TAX.

~ In 2015 Pres OBAMA and UN Officials spearheaded a Global Child Support Treaty.

However most of the Child Money collected does not go to Mothers. Instead it goes to State Coffers.

~ Due to low Child Support balances being trumped up to extremely high Child Support balances via State & County Fees, and high UNEMPLOYMENT Rates, many Fathers can NEVER really get caught up, thus many Fathers end up in JAIL or PRISON.

When these Men are Incarcerated, the States then receive FEDERAL FUNDING.

~ Snail mail spy: U.S. Postal Service active partner with feds for surveillance

The U.S. Postal Service has two key programs with the federal government aimed at rooting out terrorism that track and record data on all mail that travels through its offices.

The New York Times reported on a U.S. Postal Service “mail cover” program that’s been in place for decades. That program allows postal workers the ability to record — by hand — all the information on the front and back of letters that are mailed to residences, at the request of law enforcement.

But another program, called “Mail Isolation Control and Tracking,” is much more high-tech.

It started in 2001, after anthrax attacks hit at Capitol Hill and at various spots around the nation, and gives U.S. Postal Service workers the ability to photograph the exterior of each piece of mail that passes through the office.

The data is then recorded in case it’s needed in a future investigation.

An ex-Justice Department worker said, Newser reported:

“In the past, mail covers were used when you had a reason to suspect someone of a crime.

Now it seems to be, ‘Let’s record everyone’s mail so in the future we might go back and see who you were communicating with.’ Essentially, you’ve added mail covers on millions of Americans.”

Post Sources: Washington Times, NY Times, Marshall Project, YouTube

EDWARD SNOWDEN vs MIKE ROGERS: I Trust SNOWDEN! He Deserves Some Level Of Clemency!

#EdwardSnowdenMikeRogersNSA

The whole world now wants America to Pardon/ Forgive NSA Whistleblower EDWARD SNOWDEN for alerting American Citizens that Our Civil Liberties & PRIVACY were being severely Violated by our Elected Officials (Pres OBAMA & CONGRESS).

I too believe Mr SNOWDEN deserves some level of Clemency for his Courageous act.

Initially I judged Mr SNOWDEN as a TRAITOR.

However as I researched the FACTS of his case, I learned this Young Man is indeed more of a PATRIOT than a TRAITOR.

Why??

Here are four reasons:

**1) Mr SNOWDEN did NOT Hire himself as a NSA employee, the Federal Gov't did.

**2) Mr SNOWDEN did NOT conduct his Background Check, the Federal Gov't did.

**3) Mr SNOWDEN did NOT grant himself a Security Clearance, the Federal Gov't did.

**4) Mr SNOWDEN did NOT Violate our Civil Liberties & PRIVACY, the Federal Gov't did.

Thus how can EDWARD SNOWDEN be a Criminal??

Mr SNOWDEN knew he was being Hired to be a HACKER for the Federal Gov't but he thought he was just being Hired to HACK into the Personal Info of Real Suspected TERRORISTS.

Not SPY on Innocent American Citizens WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE!

Not SPY on Innocent American Citizens WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE for POLITICAL Reasons, or just to keep entire Communities of Human Beings in BONDAGE!

The Federal Gov't Hired Mr SNOWDEN.....offered him a Great Salary....and in exchange for keeping that Great Salary, they expected him to Betray the American People by HACKING into their Personal Lives WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE!

Please understand I am Not Opposed to the U.S. Federal Gov't using Broad Surveillance Powers Legally for authentic NATIONAL SECURITY purposes because I too want to be SAFE from TERRORISM.

I am Only Opposed to the U.S. Federal Gov't ABUSING its Broad Surveillance Powers to Violate the same U.S. Constitution its ELECTED Officials have vowed to uphold, for POLITICS & other Personal reasons!

So in essence the Federal Gov't is using the NSA NOT to track down Real Suspected TERRORISTS as Congressman MIKE ROGERS proclaims.

And why is the Federal Gov't COLLECTING DATA & INFO on Each American Citizen??

It's being stored at a huge Compound in UTAH but Why??

Federal Gov't Officials are using the NSA to SPY on ALL American Citizens WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE just because they Can, NOT because they need to!

i.e., "Big Brother" Is Here!

This is beyond WRONG & ILLEGAL!

Another example of Federal Gov't ABUSE is the IRS targeting Innocent American Citizens for their RELIGIOUS Beliefs & POLITICAL Affiliations.

Or......

Using the IRS to RETALIATE against Innocent American Citizens.

Both actions are also WRONG & ILLEGAL!!

So do I strongly believe EDWARD SNOWDEN is a necessary, Courageous Young Whistleblower who deserves some level of Clemency??

YES!!

FYI:

I WILL NEVER TRUST CONGRESSMAN MIKE ROGERS (R-MI) AGAIN.

Why??

One word.....DETROIT!








"Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower"


Seven months ago, the world began to learn the vast scope of the National Security Agency’s reach into the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the United States and around the globe, as it collects information about their phone calls, their email messages, their friends and contacts, how they spend their days and where they spend their nights.

The public learned in great detail how the agency has exceeded its mandate and abused its authority, prompting outrage at kitchen tables and at the desks of Congress, which may finally begin to limit these practices.

The revelations have already prompted two federal judges to accuse the N.S.A. of violating the Constitution (although a third, unfortunately, found the dragnet surveillance to be legal).

A panel appointed by President Obama issued a powerful indictment of the agency’s invasions of privacy and called for a major overhaul of its operations.

All of this is entirely because of information provided to journalists by Edward Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor who stole a trove of highly classified documents after he became disillusioned with the agency’s voraciousness. Mr. Snowden is now living in Russia, on the run from American charges of espionage and theft, and he faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life looking over his shoulder.

Considering the enormous value of the information he has revealed, and the abuses he has exposed, Mr. Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight. He may have committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service. It is time for the United States to offer Mr. Snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency that would allow him to return home, face at least substantially reduced punishment in light of his role as a whistle-blower, and have the hope of a life advocating for greater privacy and far stronger oversight of the runaway intelligence community.

Mr. Snowden is currently charged in a criminal complaint with two violations of the Espionage Act involving unauthorized communication of classified information, and a charge of theft of government property. Those three charges carry prison sentences of 10 years each, and when the case is presented to a grand jury for indictment, the government is virtually certain to add more charges, probably adding up to a life sentence that Mr. Snowden is understandably trying to avoid.

The president said in August that Mr. Snowden should come home to face those charges in court and suggested that if Mr. Snowden had wanted to avoid criminal charges he could have simply told his superiors about the abuses, acting, in other words, as a whistle-blower.

“If the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, I signed an executive order well before Mr. Snowden leaked this information that provided whistle-blower protection to the intelligence community for the first time,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference. “So there were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions.”

In fact, that executive order did not apply to contractors, only to intelligence employees, rendering its protections useless to Mr. Snowden. More important, Mr. Snowden told The Washington Post earlier this month that he did report his misgivings to two superiors at the agency, showing them the volume of data collected by the N.S.A., and that they took no action. (The N.S.A. says there is no evidence of this.) That’s almost certainly because the agency and its leaders don’t consider these collection programs to be an abuse and would never have acted on Mr. Snowden’s concerns.

In retrospect, Mr. Snowden was clearly justified in believing that the only way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would not. Beyond the mass collection of phone and Internet data, consider just a few of the violations he revealed or the legal actions he provoked:

■ The N.S.A. broke federal privacy laws, or exceeded its authority, thousands of times per year, according to the agency’s own internal auditor.

■ The agency broke into the communications links of major data centers around the world, allowing it to spy on hundreds of millions of user accounts and infuriating the Internet companies that own the centers. Many of those companies are now scrambling to install systems that the N.S.A. cannot yet penetrate.

■ The N.S.A. systematically undermined the basic encryption systems of the Internet, making it impossible to know if sensitive banking or medical data is truly private, damaging businesses that depended on this trust.

■ His leaks revealed that James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress when testifying in March that the N.S.A. was not collecting data on millions of Americans. (There has been no discussion of punishment for that lie.)

■ The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rebuked the N.S.A. for repeatedly providing misleading information about its surveillance practices, according to a ruling made public because of the Snowden documents. One of the practices violated the Constitution, according to the chief judge of the court.

■ A federal district judge ruled earlier this month that the phone-records-collection program probably violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. He called the program “almost Orwellian” and said there was no evidence that it stopped any imminent act of terror.

The shrill brigade of his critics say Mr. Snowden has done profound damage to intelligence operations of the United States, but none has presented the slightest proof that his disclosures really hurt the nation’s security. Many of the mass-collection programs Mr. Snowden exposed would work just as well if they were reduced in scope and brought under strict outside oversight, as the presidential panel recommended.

When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government. That’s why Rick Ledgett, who leads the N.S.A.’s task force on the Snowden leaks, recently told CBS News that he would consider amnesty if Mr. Snowden would stop any additional leaks.

And it’s why President Obama should tell his aides to begin finding a way to end Mr. Snowden’s vilification and give him an incentive to return home.


Sources: AP, CBS News, CNN, NY Times, Russia Today, The Guardian, Youtube

NSA: New Ruling Claims NSA Overreach Does Not Violate 4th Amendment Rights (It Does!)

#NSARuling

ANOTHER NSA RULING:

WHO SHOULD MANAGE THE NSA??

U.S. MILITARY vs U.S. FEDERAL GOV'T:

Friday a New York Federal Judge ruled NSA Data Mining & Mass Phone Surveillance of American Citizens is LEGAL.

Can someone please explain how can a procedure be LEGAL if it Violates the U.S. Constitution?? (4th Amendment)

I thought that Federal Judges were supposed to use LEGAL Precedent to Interpret & Enforce Laws, Not use the Judicial Bench to Legislate NEW Laws,
Or use the Judicial Bench to Destroy the U.S. Constitution!!

Now let's be clear.

If the U.S. Military manages the NSA Program, it Is LEGAL & I concur.

Why??

Because the U.S. Military will use ONLY use the Collected Metadata & Collected Personal Citizen Info to Target Real TERRORISTS.....

Not TARGET U. S. Citizens.
(i.e., National Security Purposes)

However.....

If the U.S. Federal Gov't manages the NSA Program, and SPIES on American Citizens,
We could be held HOSTAGE & have Collected Private Info used against Us.

Thus this action is Not LEGAL if the NSA is Managed by the Federal Gov't because it Violates Our 4th Amendment Rights.

I am also concerned if the U.S. Federal Gov't manages the NSA Program, it will use Collected Metadata & Personal Citizen Info for POLITICAL Purposes........

Not for National Security purposes!


Source: USA Today

NSA PHONE SPYING ON U.S. CITIZENS RULED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY A FEDERAL JUDGE

NSA PHONE SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL & MAKES THE INTERNET LESS SAFE.

FEDERAL GOV'T CAN'T USE 1979 SCOTUS CASE TO SPY ON AMERICAN CITIZENS NOR TO CREATE "BIG BROTHER" TYPE SOCIETY.


"Updated: Federal Judge Finds NSA Spying Unconstitutional"

Government can't use 1979 law to justify its "Almost-Orwellian" Technology.

In a stunning decision, a DC-based federal judge has ruled that the National Security Agency spying revealed this summer violates the constitution.

The opinion (PDF) published today by US District Judge Richard Leon is in response to a lawsuit filed by Larry Klayman, a longtime conservative activist.

Klayman was fast on the draw, filing his lawsuit on June 6, one day after widespread NSA surveillance was revealed in June.

Leon's order grants an injunction that will shut down the NSA's Bulk Telephony Metadata Program, and it requires the government to destroy the metadata collected on the plaintiffs' accounts. The shutdown will only happen if an appeals court agrees with Leon, who has stayed the injunction pending appeal, "in light of the significant national security issues at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues."

A problematic precedent

Today's 71-page order works around a problematic precedent for privacy reformers, Smith v. Maryland. That's the 1979 Supreme Court decision that found there's "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in the actual phone numbers dialed from a telephone, because they are "business records." That's what allows "pen registers" to be installed by police without judicial review, since it's not a "search" in the eyes of courts.

"The question before me is not the same question that the Supreme Court confronted in Smith," wrote Leon. Using a pen register "is a far cry from the issue in this case." We've reached a turning point in the history of technology, in Leon's reading. The government's decades-old reasoning can't hold up in the present day.

He writes:

Indeed, the question in this case can more properly be styled as follows: when do present-day circumstances—the evolutions in the Government's surveillance capabilities, citizens' phone habits, and the relationship between the NSA and telecom companies—become so thoroughly unlike those considered by the Supreme Court 34 years ago that a precedent like Smith simply does not apply?

The answer, unfortunately for the government, is now.

The court of 1979 could not "have ever imagined how the citizens of 2013 would interact with their phones," writes Leon, leaving the Smith precedent with little value.

The pen register the court considered was operational for less than two weeks, in March 1976, and there was "no indication from the Court's opinion that it expected the Government to retain those limited phone records once the case was over." The "almost-Orwellian technology" used by the government to capture phone data "is unlike anything that could have been conceived in 1979."

The NSA is using two weeks of data collected from a single phone to justify "the creation and maintenance of a historical database containing five years' worth of data," writes Leon. "And I might add, there is the very real prospect that the program will go on for as long as America is combatting terrorism, which realistically could be forever!"

Fundamentally, Leon is making the case that the law must be reconsidered in the age of the smartphone. He cites data from CTIA counting more than 326 million mobile subscribers in 2012, including 22 million computers, tablets, and modems.

"Count the phones at the bus stop, in a restaurant, or around the table at a work meeting or any given occasion," writes Leon. "Thirty-four years ago, none of those phones would have been there. Thirty-four years ago, city streets were lined with pay phones. Thirty-four years ago, when people wanted to send 'text messages,' they wrote letters and attached postage stamps."
A new North Star

The Smith case and NSA surveillance are wildly different, so a different analysis must take place. "I cannot possibly navigate these uncharted Fourth Amendment waters using as my North Star a case that predates the rise of cell phones," writes Leon.

No judge outside the secret Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court has "has ever recognized a special need sufficient to justify continuous, daily searches of virtually every American citizen without any particularized suspicion," writes Leon. "In effect, the Government urges me to be the first non-FISC judge to sanction such a dragnet."

And Leon won't do it. The Verizon subscribers who filed the suit do have an expectation of privacy, and the government has intruded on it, he concludes.

In Leon's reading of the record, the government isn't merely trying to investigate possible terrorists. It's trying to do so as fast as it possibly can. "The affidavits in support of the Government's brief repeatedly emphasize this interest in speed," he notes. But the Government can't cite a single instance where the bulk metadata program "actually stopped an imminent attack."

He notes that the government could have shown more evidence to the judge privately, in chambers, but didn't. "Although the Government has publicly asserted that the NSA's surveillance programs have prevented 54 terrorist attacks, no proof of that has ever been put before me," Leon writes.

That leads him to have "serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program." While there's a "limited record" at this point in the litigation, the plaintiffs have a "substantial likelihood" of showing their privacy interests outweigh the government's interest in collecting the bulk data.

They are likely to show the bulk data program is an unreasonable search, and violates the Fourth Amendment, Leon finds. The public interest "weighs heavily in favor of granting an injunction" that will bar the government from collecting any metadata in association with their personal Verizon accounts.

Government lawyers also said that removing just the plaintiffs, two Verizon subscribers, from its database will be burdensome. That's not a "burden" Leon takes seriously. "Of course, the public has no interest in saving the government from the burdens of complying with the Constitution!"

A controversial plaintiff

In the coming months, Leon's opinion will be considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. That court considers an array of federal agency issues, and until recently it had leaned strongly Republican as the Senate held up confirmation of the candidates put forth by the Obama Administration.

However, the opposition to judicial nominees has eased somewhat following Obama's re-election, and three of the four vacancies have been filled in 2013.

The case against the NSA is not Klayman's first controversial lawsuit. Many of his cases have not ended well. Klayman has been rebuked and sanctioned by several judges, and he has been barred from some courtrooms.

In 2012, Klayman filed a lawsuit in Florida to kick President Barack Obama off the primary ballot in that state, based on the discredited theory that he was not born in the United States. In 2011, he sued Facebook for "negligence" because it didn't remove an anti-Israel page quickly enough. Neither suit was successful.

The Klayman suit is not the only challenge to NSA telephone-data program.

The more widely known case is the one filed in July by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union.

That case, filed on behalf of First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, was consolidated with a pre-Snowden anti-NSA lawsuit called Jewel v. NSA.

The government has filed a motion to dismiss, and the case awaits a judge's decision. A DC-based privacy group, EPIC, tried to take the issue straight to the Supreme Court, but that failed.

Dissatisfaction with NSA surveillance has hit Congress, as well.

The USA Freedom Act, which would end NSA spying, has 130 co-sponsors.

NSA leaker Edward Snowden's statement on today's decision has been published in The New York Times. Snowden said:

I acted on my belief that the N.S.A.'s mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts.

Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many.


Sources: ARS Technica, CNN, NBC News

Dharun Ravi's Guilty Verdict vs REAL Hate Crimes (Gay Rights vs Civil Rights)

Dharun Ravi's Trial Proves that HATE CRIMES in America involving Blatant Racism against BLACK People are completely Ignored.

While HATE CRIMES against GAY People & ABORTION Providers are Prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law.

Welcome to 21st Century America!




Guilty verdict in Rutgers webcam spying case


A former Rutgers University student accused of spying on and intimidating his gay roommate by use of a hidden webcam was found guilty Friday of all counts -- including invasion of privacy and the more severe charges of bias intimidation -- in a case that thrust cyberbullying into the national spotlight.

Dharun Ravi, 20, was also found guilty of witness tampering, hindering apprehension and tampering with physical evidence, and could now face up to 10 years in jail and deportation to his native India.

Sentencing has been set for May 21.

The New Jersey jury was confronted with a series of questions on each charge after it asked for clarification on what constituted bias intimidation.

Though it found Ravi not guilty on several questions within the verdict sheet, because he was found guilty on at least one question on each main count, Ravi was convicted on all charges and could now face the maximum penalty.

His roommate, Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old freshman, killed himself in September 2010 by jumping off the George Washington Bridge and into the Hudson River after learning that Ravi had secretly spied on his sexual encounter with another man.

CNN legal analyst Paul Callan called Friday's verdict "unprecedented," adding that it "sends a message to people across the rest of the country" about the potential consequences of unauthorized webcam use in an age of expanding social media.

"New Jersey enacted a law that said if you secretly record (someone engaged in an intimate act) with a webcam or any other kind of video and you broadcast that without their permission, that is a crime," Callan said. "Every place else in America up until this law was enacted, you could sue somebody for civil damages for the embarrassment, but you weren't going to go to jail.

New Jersey said it's criminal."

And because prosecutors were able to prove that Ravi's actions were born of a gay bias, the possible sentence doubles from up to five years to 10 years behind bars.

Clementi's death stirred discussion about bullying, with President Barack Obama releasing a videotaped message condemning it. A few months later, New Jersey legislators enacted stricter laws to protect against bullying in schools.

"This haunting and awful case shows how much society has changed," said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin of Friday's verdict. "Even though he was not charged directly in connection with Clementi's suicide, that tragedy hung over the trial and undoubtedly played a major part in every aspect of the case."

After the verdict, Rutgers University released a statement saying, "This sad incident should make us all pause to recognize the importance of civility and mutual respect in the way we live, work and communicate with others."

Prosecutors had argued that Ravi, who sat expressionless in the courtroom Friday, had tried to embarrass Clementi because he was gay and that his actions were motivated by a desire to intimidate the Ridgewood, New Jersey, native expressly because of his sexual orientation.

"These acts were purposeful, they were intentional, and they were planned," prosecutor Julia L. McClure told the jury on the first day of the trial. Ravi "was bothered by Tyler Clementi's sexual orientation," she later said more bluntly.

Ravi's attorneys countered by saying their client acted thoughtlessly, portraying him as an immature college student who made a mistake, and that his actions were not based on homophobia.

"He hasn't lived long enough to have any experience with homosexuality or gays," attorney Steven Altman said in closing arguments earlier this week. "He doesn't know anything about it. He just graduated high school."

After the verdict Friday, Altman said he would "prepare some type of press release" next week, but vowed to appeal the ruling.

"Right now I am just dealing with the emotions that everyone involved with the Ravi family and the defense experienced and continue to experience with the verdict," he said.

Though Ravi and Molly Wei -- a fellow student who admitted to joining Ravi to watch the surreptitious encounter that others were alerted to via social media -- were charged in the wake of Clementi's suicide, they were not charged directly with his death.

Facing two counts of invasion of privacy, Wei reached a plea deal in May that required her to testify against her friend and former high school classmate as well as to complete a three-year program on cyberbullying and do 300 hours of community service.

Ravi turned down a plea deal offered by Middlesex County prosecutors that would have allowed him to avoid jail time in exchange for undergoing counseling, doing 600 hours of community service and disposing of any information that could identify the man who appeared in the Web video with Clementi.

Prosecutors also offered to help him avoid deportation, though they said they could not guarantee it.

Ravi, who had been studying on a visa at the New Jersey university, did not testify on his own behalf.

During the prosecution's phase of the trial, the man whom Clementi was intimate with, identified only as "M.B.," told jurors that he had noticed a Web camera aimed directly at Clementi's bed.

The 32-year-old man testified that he met Clementi on a social-networking site for gay men and that they eventually met three times in the student's dorm room. The two conversed online, exchanged text messages and eventually had sex, he said.

Wei testified that she watched M.B. and Clementi after Ravi had secretly set up the webcam in his and Clementi's dormitory room.

Ravi's attorney, Altman, has argued his client had initially switched on the webcam to monitor his personal items because he did not trust his roommate's visitor.

In Twitter messages from that day, Ravi wrote that he'd gone into a friend's room, "turned on my webcam" and saw his roommate "making out with a dude."

Then on September 22, 2010, Clementi took a train to New York and posted a mobile status update on his Facebook page that read, "Jumping off the gw bridge sorry."
Ravi had apparently tried to make amends with his estranged roommate that same night, according to text messages revealed in court.

"I've known you were gay and I have no problem with it," Ravi wrote in messages after he apparently learned his roommate had requested a room change.

It is not clear whether Clementi ever viewed the messages before committing suicide.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, NJ.com, Google Maps

F.B.I. Wants To Search Your Trash & Track Your Car!

Under George W. Bush's Administration F.B.I. Agents Were Given More Legal Leeway To Invade The Privacy Of American Citizens.

More Leeway To Search Databases, Your Household Trash, Use Surveillance Teams, etc., Without Court Orders Or Motive.

Pres. Obama Concurred With That Same Policy By Giving F.B.I. Agents Even MORE Legal Leeway To Conduct Such Searches.

Considering The High Level Of Terrorists Threats Both Homegrown & International, Along With Multiple Racist Hate Crime Threats Made Against Pres. Obama's Life, I Agree With Him On This Policy.

As They Say: Keep Your Friends Close & Enemies Even Closer.




F.B.I. Agents Get Leeway to Push Privacy Bounds

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.

The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.

The F.B.I. recently briefed several privacy advocates about the coming changes. Among them, Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent who is now a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that it was unwise to further ease restrictions on agents’ power to use potentially intrusive techniques, especially if they lacked a firm reason to suspect someone of wrongdoing.

“Claiming additional authorities to investigate people only further raises the potential for abuse,” Mr. German said, pointing to complaints about the bureau’s surveillance of domestic political advocacy groups and mosques and to an inspector general’s findings in 2007 that the F.B.I. had frequently misused “national security letters,” which allow agents to obtain information like phone records without a court order.

Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I. general counsel, said the bureau had fixed the problems with the national security letters and had taken steps to make sure they would not recur. She also said the bureau, which does not need permission to alter its manual so long as the rules fit within broad guidelines issued by the attorney general, had carefully weighed the risks and the benefits of each change.

“Every one of these has been carefully looked at and considered against the backdrop of why do the employees need to be able to do it, what are the possible risks and what are the controls,” she said, portraying the modifications to the rules as “more like fine-tuning than major changes.”

Some of the most notable changes apply to the lowest category of investigations, called an “assessment.” The category, created in December 2008, allows agents to look into people and organizations “proactively” and without firm evidence for suspecting criminal or terrorist activity.

Under current rules, agents must open such an inquiry before they can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search such databases without making a record about their decision.

Mr. German said the change would make it harder to detect and deter inappropriate use of databases for personal purposes. But Ms. Caproni said it was too cumbersome to require agents to open formal inquiries before running quick checks. She also said agents could not put information uncovered from such searches into F.B.I. files unless they later opened an assessment.

The new rules will also relax a restriction on administering lie-detector tests and searching people’s trash. Under current rules, agents cannot use such techniques until they open a “preliminary investigation,” which — unlike an assessment — requires a factual basis for suspecting someone of wrongdoing. But soon agents will be allowed to use those techniques for one kind of assessment, too: when they are evaluating a target as a potential informant.

Agents have asked for that power in part because they want the ability to use information found in a subject’s trash to put pressure on that person to assist the government in the investigation of others. But Ms. Caproni said information gathered that way could also be useful for other reasons, like determining whether the subject might pose a threat to agents.

The new manual will also remove a limitation on the use of surveillance squads, which are trained to surreptitiously follow targets. Under current rules, the squads can be used only once during an assessment, but the new rules will allow agents to use them repeatedly. Ms. Caproni said restrictions on the duration of physical surveillance would still apply, and argued that because of limited resources, supervisors would use the squads only rarely during such a low-level investigation.

The revisions also clarify what constitutes “undisclosed participation” in an organization by an F.B.I. agent or informant, which is subject to special rules — most of which have not been made public. The new manual says an agent or an informant may surreptitiously attend up to five meetings of a group before those rules would apply — unless the goal is to join the group, in which case the rules apply immediately.

At least one change would tighten, rather than relax, the rules. Currently, a special agent in charge of a field office can delegate the authority to approve sending an informant to a religious service. The new manual will require such officials to handle those decisions personally.

In addition, the manual clarifies a description of what qualifies as a “sensitive investigative matter” — investigations, at any level, that require greater oversight from supervisors because they involve public officials, members of the news media or academic scholars.

The new rules make clear, for example, that if the person with such a role is a victim or a witness rather than a target of an investigation, extra supervision is not necessary. Also excluded from extra supervision will be investigations of low- and midlevel officials for activities unrelated to their position — like drug cases as opposed to corruption, for example.

The manual clarifies the definition of who qualifies for extra protection as a legitimate member of the news media in the Internet era: prominent bloggers would count, but not people who have low-profile blogs. And it will limit academic protections only to scholars who work for institutions based in the United States.

Since the release of the 2008 manual, the assessment category has drawn scrutiny because it sets a low bar to examine a person or a group. The F.B.I. has opened thousands of such low-level investigations each month, and a vast majority has not generated information that justified opening more intensive investigations.

Ms. Caproni said the new manual would adjust the definition of assessments to make clear that they must be based on leads. But she rejected arguments that the F.B.I. should focus only on investigations that begin with a firm reason for suspecting wrongdoing.


Sources: MSNBC, NY Times, Russian Times, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Assange Not Afraid Of Convictions; Remains Committed To Exposing More Truth

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

WikiLeaks' Assange: Convictions "Unfaltering"


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange spoke from his prison cell in London to defend himself and attack the financial companies that suspended payments to his controversial website, Australian television reported Tuesday.

Assange told his mother that he remained committed to publishing some 250,000 pages of secret U.S. diplomatic cables, despite condemnation from Washington and elsewhere.

Australia's Network Seven asked Christine Assange to ask her son one question during a visit to his London jail: Was it worth it?

"My convictions are unfaltering. I remain true to the ideals I have expressed. This circumstance shall not shake them," said Assange, according to his mother who supplied the network with a written statement of her son's answer.

"If anything this process has increased my determination that they are true and correct."

Assange was scheduled to appear in a London court Tuesday seeking to fight his extradition to Sweden in a sex-crimes investigation and trying to secure bail after being held a week in a British prison cell.

The 39-year-old Australian was ordered held in prison custody by a judge at a hearing Dec. 7 after surrendering himself to Scotland Yard to answer a Swedish arrest warrant.

Assange is wanted for questioning after two women accused him of sexual misconduct in separate encounters in Sweden over the summer. Lawyers for Assange say he denies the allegations and will contest the attempt to extradite him for questioning.

The disclosures, which have continued unaffected since Assange was detained in prison, have offended some U.S. allies and angered its rivals. Officials in Washington claim some other countries have already curtailed their dealings with the U.S. government as a result.


'Illegal and immoral attacks'

In his statement from jail, Assange was also critical of the major finance companies who suspended payments to his WikiLeaks site, saying "We now know that Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and others are instruments of U.S. foreign policy. It's not something we knew before."

"I am calling for the world to protect my work and my people from these illegal and immoral attacks," he said.

At his Tuesday hearing, Assange will be represented in court by Geoffrey Robertson, a former appeals judge at the U.N. Special Court for Sierra Leone who has specialized in freedom of speech cases. Robertson's former clients include author Salman Rushdie.

Supporters were planning to protest Assange's detention outside the court, following a small rally on Monday outside Sweden's embassy in London.

Some of Assange's supporters suspect the extradition request has been motivated by WikiLeaks' decision last month to begin publishing its trove of the secret U.S. diplomatic cables, something Swedish officials have denied.

The U.S. Justice Department has been looking into a range of criminal charges, including violations of the 1917 Espionage Act, that could be filed in the WikiLeaks case.

Assange and his lawyers have voiced fears that U.S. prosecutors may be preparing to indict him for espionage after WikiLeaks' publication of the cables.


Swedish charges

At an hour-long court hearing last week, lawyer Gemma Lindfield — acting for Swedish police — said Assange is accused of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion.

She told the court one woman had accused Assange of pinning her down and refusing to use a condom during an encounter on Aug. 14 in Stockholm. That woman also accused of Assange of molesting her in a way "designed to violate her sexual integrity" several days later.

A second woman has accused Assange of having sex with her without a condom while he was a guest at her Stockholm home and she was asleep.

In Sweden, a person who has sex with an unconscious, drunk or sleeping person can be convicted of rape and sentenced to up to six years in prison.

Assange's Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, claims the courts are stacked against defendants in sex cases in Sweden.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

However, a 2009 European Commission-funded study found only 10 percent of sex offenses reported in Sweden result in a conviction.

Lawyers for Assange said they will make a new application Tuesday to have him freed on bail, and will offer to post a hefty bond with the court.


Extradition proceedings

At last week's court hearing in London, Senior District Judge Howard Riddle said there were "substantial grounds" to believe Assange could abscond if granted bail.

Australian journalist John Pilger, British film director Ken Loach and Jemima Khan, former wife of Pakistani cricketer and politician Imran Khan, all offered to put up sureties to persuade the court Assange would not flee.

A decision on whether to extradite Assange is expected to take several weeks. Both Assange and the Swedish government are entitled to appeal against the ruling if the judge rules against them.

Britain's government said Monday that the country's national security adviser believes government websites could be attacked in retribution if Assange is not released.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Government departments have been told they could be targeted by online "hacktivists," following attacks on companies including MasterCard Inc., Visa Inc. and PayPal Inc., which cut ties to the WikiLeaks site.

Internet activists launched "Operation Payback" to avenge WikiLeaks against those perceived to have obstructed its operations. They temporarily brought down the websites of credit card firms Visa and MasterCard, as well as that of the Swedish government, last week.

Christine Assange told her son there was worldwide support for him.

"I told him how people from all over the world, all sorts of countries were standing up with placards and screaming out for his freedom and justice and he was very heartened by that," she said. "As a mother I am asking the world to stand up for my brave son."


View Larger Map


Sources: Guardian.co.uk, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps