scroll down
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv ... ouse-firedPolice laugh as Trump condones police brutality
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... s-with-fbiWatchdog group calls for probe of Scaramucci's contacts with FBI, Justice Dept.
BY MAX GREENWOOD - 07/28/17 04:22 PM EDT 54
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-plot-t ... er/5544005MLK Day: The Plot to Kill Martin Luther King: Survived Shooting, Was Murdered in Hospital
Martin Luther King was murdered in a conspiracy that was instigated by then FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. Review of William Pepper's Book
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/tim ... k_20170727Time to Reassess the Roles Played by Guccifer 2.0 and Russia in the DNC ‘Hack’
Posted on Jul 27, 2017
By Scott Ritter
Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., in June 2016. (Paul Holston / AP)
Editor’s note: The writer is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), but he was not a signer of the July 24 memorandum that figures prominently in this article.
The current American political canonical theology holds as an incontrovertible truth that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. According to this dogma, which has been actively promulgated by former and current government officials and echoed by an unquestioning mainstream media, Russian intelligence services, directed by President Vladimir Putin, conducted cyber-operations against targets associated with the U.S. election for the purpose of denigrating the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, to help her opponent, Donald Trump.
Adherence to this conclusion is mandatory, lest one be accused of challenging the gospel according to the U.S. intelligence community. “Russia did it,” Rep. Ted Lieu, a California Democrat who serves on the House Judiciary and the Foreign Affairs committees, has declared. “There’s no rational person who looked at evidence and concluded otherwise.”
While Rep. Lieu himself is not on the House Intelligence Committee and, as such, has not seen the evidence he cites, his fellow representative, Adam Schiff, the Democratic co-chair of the House Intelligence Committee, has. When President Trump dared question the findings of the U.S. intelligence community on Russia, Schiff lashed out. “The president’s comments … casting doubt on whether Russia was behind the blatant interference in our election and suggesting—his own intelligence agencies to the contrary—that nobody really knows, continue to directly undermine U.S. interests.”
It was with some interest, therefore, that I read a memorandum published earlier this week by a group of retired intelligence professionals who, like the president, dare to challenge the conventional wisdom of attributing to Russia the cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016 and the subsequent release of information obtained for the ostensible purpose of harming the candidacy of Clinton. This group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), used a portion of its collective experience to closely examine a forensic analysis of metadata-related information that the U.S. intelligence community and its supporters in Congress claimed was “hacked” by Russia. Documents from the DNC were copied by the persona Guccifer 2.0 on July 5, 2016, collated on Sept. 1 and released to select members of the press on Sept. 13.
The men and women who compose VIPS have, in their prior lives, briefed U.S. presidents and members of Congress. They have served as national intelligence officers, FBI special agents, CIA case officers, National Security Agency (NSA) technical directors, Defense Intelligence Agency and State Department analysts, and more. Their expertise is drawn from decades of highly sensitive work within the three agencies—the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the NSA—responsible for preparing the U.S. intelligence communities’ assessment of Russian meddling and within most, if not all, of the other agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community.
These are rational people whose collective body of work has always been in direct support of the national interest and never against it. They cut across the American political spectrum, holding views that are liberal, conservative and moderate—sometimes simultaneously, as is fitting those intellects that have been conditioned to be open to considering all sources of information. Since 2003, VIPS has published 50 memorandums similar to the one published this week, all addressing current issues on which the intelligence background of its collective membership could weigh in credibly. Like any intelligence collective, the group strives for accuracy but is susceptible to the all-too-human trait of fallibility. The retired professionals of VIPS, like their active counterparts, sometimes get it wrong.
I agree with the argument of the July 24 VIPS memorandum that takes issue with the Jan. 6, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian meddling. This NIA evaluation assessed “with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona … to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.” The assessments contained within the Russia ICA, which lies at the very heart of the ongoing controversy surrounding accusations of collusion by people affiliated with the Trump presidential campaign and Russia, is demonstrably wrong. The VIPS memorandum to President Trump is a valuable contribution to a larger discussion of the intelligence community’s erroneous assessment that is, otherwise, lacking.
The heart of the VIPS memorandum can be found in two paragraphs that relate to Guccifer 2.0 and his alleged involvement in the cyberattack against the DNC:
After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. [Boldface in original.] Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East Coast of the U.S.
Two issues emerge from these passages. First, the ICA contends that Guccifer 2.0 accessed data from the DNC through a “cyber operation.” Technically, this could mean anything involving computers, including remote hacking and/or direct data removal using an external storage device, such as a thumb drive. However, Guccifer 2.0 has claimed he accessed the DNC server through remote hacking, and an investigation of unauthorized intrusions into the DNC server conducted by a private cybersecurity company, CrowdStrike, has attributed the theft of data to a hacking operation ostensibly overseen by Russian military intelligence, or the GRU. The FBI has endorsed the findings of CrowdStrike when it comes to the cyber-intrusion into the DNC server. As such, there is little doubt that the NIA is referring to a remote hack when it speaks of a “cyber operation” involving the DNC.
The analysis contained in the VIPS memorandum contradicts such an assertion. Unfortunately, this conclusion is not supported by the data. I reached out to the forensic analysts who conducted the analysis of the metadata in question. They have stated that there is no way to use the available metadata to determine where the copying of the data was done. In short, one cannot state that this data proves Guccifer 2.0 had direct access to the DNC server or that the data was located in the DNC when it was copied on July 5, 2016. These same analysts also note that the July 5 date that is pervasive on the metadata probably overwrote all prior modification times, meaning it is impossible to ascertain if there were any prior copy operations.
The VIPS memorandum also speaks of the insertion of “telltale” signs into data copied from the DNC server designed to implicate Russia. I have reached out to the analysts responsible for this assertion, and it appears that they mistakenly attributed actual document manipulation from an earlier date to the July 5 data transfer event. This in no way minimizes the seriousness of the underlying charge—other credible cyber-investigators have proved such data insertion on documents previously published by Guccifer 2.0 on June 15, 2016. Metadata analysis of several Word documents related to that release clearly shows that the contents of at least four documents were cut from the original document and then pasted into a Word template specifically set up for the Cyrillic alphabet, and which showed document attribution, in the Cyrillic alphabet, to “Felix Edmundovich,” the first name and patronymic of the founder of the Soviet intelligence service.
This cut-and-paste activity was conducted after the documents were accessed by Guccifer 2.0, which means Guccifer 2.0, for no practical reason whatsoever, manipulated documents in a way that created the impression of a Russian connection at the same time he was denying any such link. While the July 5 event cannot be used to argue a continuation of the document manipulation that transpired on June 15, it is clear that the false Russian attribution that arose from this manipulation carried over when the July 5 data was finally released, on Sept. 13. “The DNC is the victim of a crime—an illegal cyberattack by Russian state-sponsored agents who seek to harm the Democratic Party and progressive groups in an effort to influence the presidential election” Donna Brazille, the interim chair of the Democratic Party at the time, proclaimed in an official statement after the documents were released by Guccifer 2.0.
The implications of the conclusions reached in the VIPS memorandum (if not the actual technical analysis it relied on) are staggering: The DNC “hack” was actually a cyber-theft perpetrated by an insider with direct access to the DNC server, who then deliberately doctored documents to make them look as if they had been accessed by a Russian-speaking actor prior to releasing them to the public. This is not the narrative being pushed by the U.S. intelligence, Congress and the mainstream media. Moreover, if true, the conclusions reached by VIPS point to a broader conspiracy within the United States to undermine the credibility of an admittedly unpopular, yet legitimately elected president that borders on sedition.
These are serious allegations that should not be made lightly. Indeed, if I were acting solely on the information contained within the VIPS memorandum, I would hesitate to make them—the issue of download rates for a data set dated July 5, 2016, seems irrelevant for a cyber-intrusion alleged to have taken place in April-May of 2016. Either Guccifer 2.0 regained access to the DNC server in an as-of-yet-unreported (and unclaimed) cyber-operation, or the download involved data previously removed from the DNC server, and, as such, is apropos of nothing. The VIPS memorandum does not provide any technical data that would sustain a finding that the information in question was physically in the possession of the DNC on July 5, 2016—the day Guccifer 2.0 supposedly oversaw the transmission from its point of origin. Indeed, the analysts say that assertion cannot be derived from the data.
Such attention to detail, normally the signature of solid intelligence analysis, is not needed in this case. The VIPS memorandum serves a larger purpose here: It questions a premise that has become de rigueur in the national narrative—that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian actor. “Guccifer 2.0 is known to be the Russians,” Brian Fallon, the press secretary for Hillary Clinton, opined in September 2016. Democratic operatives made similar statements throughout the summer and fall of 2016.
On Oct. 6, 2016, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security published a joint statement that noted that the “recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails” by Guccifer 2.0 (and others) “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts,” without further elaboration beyond declaring that “the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there.”
Rep. Schiff, the aforementioned Democratic co-chair of the House Intelligence Committee, stated in March 2017 that “a hacker who goes by the moniker, Guccifer 2.0, claims responsibility for hacking the DNC and giving the documents to WikiLeaks. … The U.S. intelligence community also later confirmed that the documents were in fact stolen by Russian intelligence, and Guccifer 2.0 acted as a front.”
The problem is that there simply isn’t any hard data in the public domain to back up these statements of fact. What is known is that a persona using the name Guccifer 2.0 published documents said to be sourced from the DNC on several occasions starting from June 15, 2016. Guccifer 2.0 claims to have stolen these documents by perpetrating a cyber-penetration of the DNC server. However, the hacking methodology Guccifer 2.0 claims to have employed does not match the tools and techniques allegedly uncovered by the cybersecurity professionals from CrowdStrike when they investigated the DNC intrusion. Moreover, cyber-experts claim the Guccifer 2.0 “hack” could not have been executed as he described.
What CrowdStrike did claim to have discovered is that sometime in March 2016, the DNC server was infected with what is known as an X-Agent malware. According to CrowdStrike, the malware was deployed using an open-source, remote administration tool known as RemCom. The malware in question, a network tunneling tool known as X-Tunnel, was itself a repurposed open-source tool that made no effort to encrypt its source code, meaning anyone who gained access to this malware would be able to tell exactly what it was intended to do.
CrowdStrike claimed that the presence of the X-Agent malware was a clear “signature” of a hacking group—APT 28, or Fancy Bear—previously identified by German intelligence as being affiliated with the GRU, Russian military intelligence. Additional information about the command and control servers used by Fancy Bear, which CrowdStrike claims were previously involved in Russian-related hacking activity, was also reported.
The CrowdStrike data is unconvincing. First and foremost, the German intelligence report it cites does not make an ironclad claim that APT 28 is, in fact, the GRU. In fact, the Germans only “assumed” that GRU conducts cyberattacks. They made no claims that they knew for certain that any Russians, let alone the GRU, were responsible for the 2015 cyberattack on the German Parliament, which CrowdStrike cites as proof of GRU involvement. Second, the malware in question is available on the open market, making it virtually impossible to make any attribution at all simply by looking at similarities in “tools and techniques.” Virtually anyone could have acquired these tools and used them in a manner similar to how they were employed against both the German Parliament and the DNC.
The presence of open-source tools is, in itself, a clear indicator that Russian intelligence was not involved. Documents released by Edward Snowden show that the NSA monitored the hacking of a prominent Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, by Russian intelligence, “deploying malicious software which is not available in the public domain.” The notion that the Russians would use special tools to hack a journalist’s email account and open-source tools to hack either the DNC or the German Parliament is laughable. My experience with Soviet/Russian intelligence, which is considerable, has impressed me with the professionalism and dedication to operational security that were involved. The APT 28/Fancy Bear cyber-penetration of the DNC and the Guccifer 2.0 operation as a whole are the antithesis of professional.
Perhaps more important, however, is the fact that no one has linked the theft of the DNC documents to Guccifer 2.0. We do not know either the date or mechanism of penetration. We do not have a list of the documents accessed and exfiltrated from the DNC by APT 28, or any evidence that these documents ended up in Guccifer 2.0’s possession. It is widely assumed that the DNC penetration was perpetrated through a “spear-phishing” attack, in which a document is created that simulates a genuine communication in an effort to prompt a response by the receiver, usually by clicking a specified field, which facilitates the insertion of malware. Evidence of the Google-based documents believed to have been the culprits behind the penetration of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and John Podesta’s email servers have been identified, along with the dates of malware infection. No such information has been provided about the DNC penetration.
Which brings up perhaps the most curious aspect of this entire case: The DNC servers at the center of this controversy were never turned over to the FBI for forensic investigation. Instead, the FBI had to rely upon copies of the DNC server data provided by CrowdStrike. The fact that it was CrowdStrike, and not the FBI, that made the GRU attribution call based upon the investigation of the alleged cyber-penetration of the DNC server is disturbing. As shown here, there is good reason to doubt the viability of the CrowdStrike analysis. That the FBI, followed by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. intelligence community, and the mainstream media, has parroted this questionable assertion as fact is shocking.
The Guccifer 2.0 story is at the center of the ongoing controversy swirling around the Trump White House concerning allegations of collusion with Russia regarding meddling in the 2016 presidential election. While APT 28/Fancy Bear is not the only alleged Russian hacking operation claimed to have been targeting the DNC, it is the one that has been singled out as “weaponizing” intelligence—employing stolen documents for the express purpose of altering public opinion against Hillary Clinton. This act has been characterized as an attack against America, and was cited by President Barack Obama when he imposed sanctions on Russia in December 2016 and expelled 35 Russian diplomats. Congress has also referred to this “attack” as the principal justification for a bill seeking new and tougher sanctions targeting Russia.
This issue is likely to be front and center before the American public in the coming days. President Trump is facing a decision on whether to veto the aforementioned congressional bill sanctioning Russia. Trump has expressed doubts as to the veracity of the intelligence linking Russia to the hacks, contradicting the conclusions of Congress and the U.S. intelligence community. A presidential veto, or strong signing statement in opposition, could trigger a constitutional crisis between the president and Congress over the issue of executive power.
The stakes could not be higher. The American people would do well to demand a proper investigation into what actually transpired at the DNC in the spring of 2016. To date there has been no examination worthy of the name regarding the facts that underpin the accusations at the center of the American argument against Russia—that the GRU hacked the DNC server and used Guccifer 2.0 as a conduit for the release of stolen documents in a manner designed to influence the American presidential election. The VIPS memorandum of July 24, 2017, questions the veracity of these claims. I believe these doubts are well founded.
Blink Tank
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tfPtNtQLaVkLink du jour
https://www.ramdass.org/not-our-bodies/http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/28/ph ... -building/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/he ... fa38052a17http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.3362989http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/sneed- ... i-vehicle/https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... 160c636628http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/27/ar ... e-trooper/Arapahoe County deputy faces charges in collision with state trooper
The deputy and a state trooper were injured in the June 19 accident
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/27/ro ... ettlement/Rocky Ford to pay $1.3 million to family of man murdered by on-duty police officer in 2014
Officer James Ashby is serving a prison sentence for killing Jack Jacquez
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/27/pe ... o-request/BLM weighing request to mine 4.1 million more tons of coal in northwest Colorado under Trump’s energy policies
Peabody has applied to lease 640 more acres of federal coal west of Steamboat Springs has part of its Foidel Creek Mine operations
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/27/fr ... als-court/Appeals court asked to put off decision on fracking rule that Trump administration wants to undo
The nation’s stalled rule to protect public land against harm from fracking faced multiple threats Thursday after the oil and gas industry and states, including Colorado, asked a federal appeals court to hold off indefinitely on deciding whether it is legal.
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserv ... ethod=FullUCS: Prepare for inevitable and repeated inundations
When Rising Seas Hit Home:
Hard Choices Ahead for Hundreds of US Coastal Communities
The Union of Concerned Scientists, July 13, 2017
If saltwater regularly soaked your basement or first floor, kept you from getting to work, or damaged your car, how often would it have to happen before you began looking for a new place to call home?
This national analysis identifies when US coastal communities will face a level of disruptive flooding that affects people's homes, daily routines, and livelihoods. It identifies hundreds of communities that will face chronic inundation and possible retreat over the coming decades as sea levels rise.
The findings highlight what’s at stake in our fight to address sea level rise and global warming. They also provide affected communities a measure of how much time they have to prepare.
Chronic inundation
Each community has a threshold for sea level rise and chronic flooding beyond which sustaining normal routines becomes impossible.
For this national analysis, that chronic inundation threshold is defined as flooding that occurs 26 times per year (on average, once every other week) or more. Communities where more than 10 percent of usable land exceeds this threshold are deemed chronically inundated.
Three different sea level rise scenarios were assessed through 2100:
* A “high scenario,” in which emissions rise through the end of the century and ice sheets melt faster to yield about 6.5 feet of sea level rise.
* An “intermediate scenario” that projects carbon emissions peaking around mid-century and about 4 feet of sea level rise globally, with ice melting at a moderate rate that increases over time.
* A “low scenario” that assumes carbon emissions decline steeply and warming is limited to less than 2 degrees Celsius—in line with the primary goal of the Paris Climate Agreement. Sea level rise is driven primarily by ocean warming with very little ice loss.
Key findings
* By 2035, about 170 communities—roughly twice as many as today—will face chronic inundation and possible retreat from affected areas under the intermediate or high scenarios, with more than 100 seeing at least a quarter of their land chronically flooded.
* By 2060, about 270 communities will face chronic inundation with intermediate sea level rise. This number jumps to 360 under the high scenario. About 40 percent of chronically inundated communities in either scenario would see at least half of their land flooded.
* By 2100, about 490 communities—including roughly 40 percent of all oceanfront communities on the East and Gulf Coasts—will face chronic inundation and possible retreat with intermediate sea level rise, with nearly 300 seeing at least a quarter of their land chronically flooded. The number of communities jumps to about 670—including roughly 60 percent of all oceanfront communities on the East and Gulf Coasts—under the high scenario.
* If we act today to achieve the temperature and emissions reductions goals outlined in the Paris Climate Agreement, and succeed in slowing the acceleration of sea level rise, about 380 communities could avoid chronic inundation this century.
Preparing for impacts
The solutions that can help protect individual communities from increased flooding fall into three broad categories: defending against the sea, accommodating rising water, and retreating from flood-prone areas. In practice, many communities will seek to combine these approaches. Not all approaches will work everywhere. Many are costly to sustain, and rising seas may simply preclude some options.
Robust federal and state-level policies and resources will be vital to help communities understand their risks, assess their choices, and implement adaptation plans. To effectively prepare, the country must take bold measures commensurate with the scale of the coastal risks.
The wise choice
As we look ahead to the end of this century, we have a choice. If we take aggressive action to address climate change, and succeed in slowing the acceleration of sea level rise, many communities—nearly 400 identified by this analysis—could avoid chronic inundation this century. If, however, sea levels rise along the high scenario, those communities face the risk of chronic inundation by 2100.
At this crossroads, reducing global warming emissions must be a national priority. The US can still make deep cuts in heat-trapping emissions and contribute to global efforts to limit climate change. We can still avoid some of the most serious human consequences and losses that our coasts face this century.
We have time to respond. We must use it wisely.
The methodology and assumptions used for this analysis are published in the peer-reviewed journal, Elementa. Download the PDF.
For additional information, please see the full report.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/gl ... WePcOmQxPYhttp://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.htmlMajority of civilian oversight body wants L.A. County sheriff to stop flying drone
http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/investigatin ... is-mccabe/'WATCHING THE WATCHERS': LAWSUITS TARGET FBI'S MCCABE
Group seeks info on Comey's replacement, wife's ties to Democrats
The FBI, of course, is the federal agency that carries out some of the nation’s most important investigations.
But of late, there have been raised questions about the agency’s chiefs. After all, fired director James Comey was the lead player in the FBI’s announcement not to prosecute Hillary Clinton, even though he explained her national security-related actions exhibited extremely poor judgment.
Then there has been the ongoing investigation into claims that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential race, a rumor-filled nest that has yet to produce anything more than some decisions political insiders would describe as unwise.
And of course after Comey was fired, he released government documents to a friend to give to the media in his desire to manipulate the Washington bureaucracy to trigger an outside counsel’s investigation of “Russia,” which he got.
Now questions are being raised about his close friend, Andrew McCabe, who became acting FBI chief when Comey was removed.
They come in the form of three lawsuits filed by officials with Judicial Watch seeking information about McCabe’s activities.
Get “Trump’s War: His Battle for America” by talk radio icon Michael Savage, from the WND Superstore.
“There are numerous questions about the ethics and judgment of the FBI’s top leadership, particularly acting FBI director Andrew McCabe,” said Tom Fitton, the Judicial Watch chief.
“These new lawsuits will help Americans ‘watch the watchers’ at the powerful FBI.”
The actions, under the federal Freedom of Information Act, address McCabe’s “political activities, travel vouchers, and employment status.”
The first two address his wife’s failed campaign for political office, and interactions with Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Judicial Watch explained.
The first requests records of communications between McCabe and others in the FBI or the Department of Justice on the topic of his involvement in political campaigns, or his wife’s involvement.
President Trump raised some related questions in just the last few days.
He was on social media to say, “Problem is that the acting head of the FBI & the person in charge of the Hillary investigation, Andrew McCabe, got $700,000 from H for wife!”
He continued, “Why didn’t A.G. Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of Clinton investigation but got big dollars ($700,000) for his wife’s political run from Hillary Clinton and her representatives. Drain the Swamp!”
The facts are that Common Good VA, McAuliffe’s PAC, gave almost $468,000 to McCabe’s wife’s campaign. Then the Virginia Democrat Party gave almost another $208,000.
Judicial Watch said its first FOIA action seeks “records of communication between FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and other FBI or Department of Justice (‘DOJ’) officials regarding, concerning or relating to ethical issues concerning the involvement of Andrew McCabe and/or his wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, in political campaigns” and “records related to ethical guidance concerning political activities provided to Deputy Director McCabe by FBI and/or DOJ officials or elements.”
The second related case seeks records of communications between McCabe and any official in the Virginia governor’s office, anyone in the DNC, or the Democratic Party of Virginia.
“In 2015, a political action committee run by McAuliffe, a close friend and political supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, donated nearly $500,000 to Jill McCabe, wife of McCabe, who was then running for the Virginia State Senate,” Judicial Watch confirmed. “Also, the Virginia Democratic Party, over which McAuliffe had significant influence, donated an additional $207,788 to the Jill McCabe campaign. In July 2015, Andrew McCabe was in charge of the FBI’s Washington, D.C., field office, which provided personnel resources to the Clinton email probe. The Hatch Act prohibits FBI employees from engaging ‘in political activity in concert with a political party, a candidate for partisan political office, or a partisan political group.'”
The third case seeks travel voucher and other information from McCabe.
McCabe’s elevation to the acting director’s post earlier earned the ire of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who said McCabe’s own political baggage was too much.
“He’s got political problems, because of [Virginia Gov.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/becomi ... ent-part-2Becoming an Agent
An Inside Look at What It Takes
July 28, 2017
Part 2: Inside the Classroom
Just beside Hogan’s Alley, the mock town and training facility at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, there’s a cluster of modern two-story buildings with several classrooms. Inside one of the classrooms, new agent trainees are forming their squads for the morning when they receive word that an “explosion” has occurred in a nearby city.
Over the previous few weeks, the squad has been using the skills they’ve learned to investigate a simulated hotel bombing and track down the criminals responsible for the attack. With this new report, trainees suspect that the events could be linked to terrorist activity. But before they can identify subjects, the squad needs to gather intelligence, conduct interviews, and dig up more clues.
The agents’ partners in this effort are new FBI intelligence analysts who are training right alongside them. Analysts—the men and women who help gather, share, and make sense of information and intelligence from all corners of the globe—have never been more vital to the Bureau’s mission in this post-9/11 world. By integrating their training, the FBI is replicating what agents and analysts will experience in their coming cases and ensuring that seamless collaboration is part of their DNA from day one.
http://stevehochstadt.blogspot.comTuesday, July 25, 2017
Conversations About Health Care
Everybody’s talking about health care. But it’s not because of the incompetent ideological circus playing in Congress. That offers a fascinating look into the Republican soul, but few of my conversations about health care mention politics. Talk about health care is mostly about the health of my family, my friends, and my friends’ families, and the care they need.
As a healthy youngster, my input to health care discussions at home was usually, “I’m fine.” I probably said that to my mother while I was soaking in a tub full of hot water after playing touch football. She didn’t believe me, so I got on the operating table soon enough to stop the bleeding from my ruptured spleen.
In college, I remember a lot of conversations about whether we should do something that was obviously bad for our health. I leaned toward caution, not popular then, but looking better in retrospect.
Then my parents and my friends’ parents got old. Then we got old. Now most conversations with friends and family begin right after “hello” with talk about health care. “How are you?” is not a meaningless greeting, it’s an earnest question.
There’s no cure for old age, and I don’t care. I do care about how many people close to me are dealing with forgetfulness, blood tests, pain, and walkers; with health problems of mothers and fathers and ourselves; with nurses, doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies.
Longer-lived women are taking care of men who are sinking, along with many but fewer cases the other way around. Baby boomers like me turn into caregivers, managing doctors’ visits and prescription drugs, making nursing homes a second home.
Times have changed, too. The earnest TV commercials for cough medicine, and aspirin and “Preparation H” have turned into ubiquitous ads for medicines that might make you sick or kill you; for lawyers who will sue your doctor; for hospitals that will treat you, and insurance companies that might pay them.
It’s hard not to think constantly about health. Those thoughts can be difficult, sad, perplexing, and inconclusive. Joys are recovery from illness, the kindness of health care professionals, health scares that are false alarms. The sad stuff can last a long time, changing into something different but permanent at the end.
And we talk about money. It costs money to live and maybe more to die. Whose money will pay for the health care of people I love? That’s not the first thing we talk about. It’s not the most important thing most of the time. But it’s one of the most perplexing.
When I get a bill from a doctor, I have no idea who is going to pay what. Will Medicare pick up the tab? Will my insurance company pitch in and for how much? What will I pay at the end? How much of my deductible have I used up?
Should I get long-term care insurance? Or should I have gotten it 10 years ago? Should I save money on insurance premiums by taking a high deductible? Or is that a risky bet?
Nobody can take away such worries. Ignorance doesn’t help, either from those who shouted “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” or from our President, who says he doesn’t care what happens to the rest of us, now that he didn’t get his way.
I believe that we have a right to get help with our health care from our government. We all need that help, every day, to prevent con artists from lying to us about miracle cures, to prevent the pharmaceutical industry from selling untested drugs, to prevent insurance companies from kicking the sickest off their rolls, to sponsor research which can save lives.
Our government got into the health care business to save lives, and it has been doing that, more or less successfully, for nearly two centuries. In my home town, Jacksonville, the state of Illinois long ago created institutions to care for people with health problems: a school for the deaf in 1839, a school for the blind in 1849, a hospital for the mentally ill in 1851.
Progressives around Teddy Roosevelt advocated for universal health coverage before World War I, at the same time that our government began to try to prevent disease by inspecting meat packing plants, and prohibiting adulterated drugs and false therapeutic claims.
The creators of our nation believed that “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” were the most important universal rights to be protected by government. It’s not clear what led Thomas Jefferson to elevate the pursuit of happiness to an inalienable right. If that phrase means anything, it must include government participation in our efforts to stay healthy. How can anyone be happy who can’t pay for health care they need?
There’s no such thing as a right to good health. But as Americans, we have a right to get collective help, if we need it, to stay healthy. That means government protection from poisons in our food, air, and water (see Flint, Michigan), from false claims by drug producers, and from medical malpractice. In today’s world, it must also mean assistance in paying for medical treatment for those without resources.
So says the Declaration of Independence.
Steve Hochstadt
Springbrook, WI
https://www.muckrock.com/foi/washington ... ing-17309/From: CJ Ciaramella
04/09/2015
Subject: None
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the District of Columbia Freedom of Information Act of 1974, D.C. Code Ann. § 2-531 et seq. ("D.C. Act"), I hereby request the following records:
All firearm discharge reports, incident reports regarding an officer-involved shooting, and citizen complaints against the following MPD officers:
- Chad Leo
- Curtis Sloan
- Jeremy Sharpton
- Guillermo Rivera
Please note that under D.C. public record law, if some record contained in a request are exempt from disclosure, other non-exempt information is considered segregable and must be released.
The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, and is not being made for commercial usage.
In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 15 business days, as the statute requires.
Sincerely,
CJ Ciaramella
From: Quon Hyden, Teresa
04/20/2015
Subject: None
Dear Mr. Ciaramella: This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for “a ll firearm discharge reports, incident reports regarding an officer-involved shooting, and citizen complaints against the following MPD officers:” - Chad Leo
- Curtis Sloan
- Jeremy Sharpton
- Guillermo Rivera After due consideration, we can neither admit or deny your request. The requested records are exempt from disclosure under D.C. Official Code §§ 2-534(a)(2) as their release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Please know that, under D.C. Official Code § 2-537 and 1 DCMR § 412, you have the right to appeal this letter to the Mayor or to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. If you elect to appeal to the Mayor, your appeal must be in writing and contain “Freedom of Information Act Appeal” or “FOIA Appeal” in the subject line of the letter as well on the outside of the envelope. The appeal must include (1) a copy of the original request; (2) a copy of any written denial; (3) a statement of the circumstances, reasons, and/or arguments advanced in support of disclosure; and (4) a daytime telephone number, an e-mail and/or U.S. mailing address at which you can be reached. The appeal must be mailed to: The Mayor’s Correspondence Unit, FOIA Appeal, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 316, Washington, D.C. 20004. Electronic versions of the same information can instead be e-mailed to The Mayor’s Correspondence Unit at
foia.mayor@dc.gov. Further, a copy of all appeal materials must be forwarded to the Freedom of Information Officer of the involved agency, or to the agency head of that agency, if there is no designated Freedom of Information Officer there. (mailto:foia.mayor@dc.gov) Failure to follow these administrative steps will result in delay in the processing and commencement of a response to your appeal to the Mayor. Sincerely, Teresa Quon Hyden
Acting FOIA Officer Metropolitan Police Department
From: Amare, Genet
09/09/2015
Subject: Ten-Day Extension for FOIA Request No. 2015-FOIA-04398
Dear Mr. CJ Ciaramella,
We are unable to process your request within the time allotted, we are now invoking the ten (10) day extension that is provided under the FOIA statute. Pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-532(d) and 1 DCMR §§ 405.2 and 405.3, we are providing you with written notice of our intent to extend the deadline for our response to the above-referenced FOIA request by ten (10) business days. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Regards,
Genet Amare
From: Amare, Genet
01/15/2016
Subject: Final Response Documents of Request 2015-FOIA-04398
2015-FOIA-04398_5054
Download
From: Amare, Genet
07/20/2016
Subject: Follow-Up Email: FOIA Request No. 2016-FOIA-02107
Good afternoon, Mr. Ciaramella, This email serves as a follow-up email to your request, to provide with an update on your FOIA request with the Metropolitan Police Department FOIA Office. We apologies for the delay in providing a response to your request within the statutory time allotted and we apologies for any inconvenience this delay has caused you. However, our office is experiencing a backlog due to the number of requests we have received prior to your request and the voluminous nature of such requests. I am the FOIA Specialist assigned to your case and I would like to assure you that I am working diligently to provide a response to your request. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Regards,
Genet Amare
From: MuckRock.com
08/04/2016
From: Amare, Genet (MPD)
08/05/2016
Subject: RE: DC Freedom of Information Act Request: MPD discharge reports for officers re: Briscoe shooting
Good afternoon, Mr. Ciaramella,
Thank you for your email. As previously stated, our office is experiencing a backlog due to the number of requests we have received prior to your request and the voluminous nature of such requests. I am working diligently to provide a response to your request and I apologies for the delay in providing a response to your request within the statutory time allotted. Thank you for your patience and understanding, I apologies for any inconvenience this delay has caused you.
Regards,
Genet Amare
FOIA Specialist
Metropolitan Police Department
202-724-2437
genet.amare2@dc.gov<mailto:genet.amare2@dc.gov>
From: MuckRock.com
08/22/2016
From: Amare, Genet (MPD)
08/25/2016
Subject: RE: DC Freedom of Information Act Request: MPD discharge reports for officers re: Briscoe shooting
Good morning, Mr. Ciaramella,
Thank you for your email. As previously stated, our office is experiencing a backlog due to the number of requests we have received prior to your request and the voluminous nature of such requests. I am working diligently to provide a response to your request and I apologize for the delay in providing a response to your request within the statutory time allotted. Thank you for your patience and understanding, I apologize for any inconvenience this delay has caused you.
Regards,
Genet Amare
FOIA Specialist
Metropolitan Police Department
202-724-2437
genet.amare2@dc.gov<mailto:genet.amare2@dc.gov>
From: Metropolitan Police Department
01/17/2017
Subject: None
A copy of documents responsive to the request.
3rd File As Released - Final Redactions_Redacted.pdf
View Embed Download
1-17-17 MR17309 RES-C ID#2015-82.pdf
View Embed Download
From:
07/28/2017
Subject: 2016-FOIA-02107 (Email 1)
Dear CJ Ciaramella,
Attached find a response to your FOIA Request. You will receive several emails with the documents attached.
Regards,
Ms. Branch
FOIA Specialist
FOIA Response 2 letter2
View Embed Download
From: Branch, Tara (MPD)
07/28/2017
Subject: 2016-FOIA-02107 (Email 2)
Dear CJ Ciaramella,
Attached find a response to your FOIA request. This is the second email.
Regards,
Ms. Branch
FOIA Specialist
Metropolitan Police Department
300 Indiana Avenue NW
Room 4153
Washington, DC 20001
We are here to help.
Just like our city, Sustainable DC is evolving! Help us update the plan by telling us what you care about most in this easy 3-minute survey.<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdAD451htG6I4GqSTucXRHhrupb4E-3kpZfE2R-XHBJt47PqQ/viewform?c=0&w=1> Learn more and get involved by visiting
http://www.sustainabledc.org/in-dc/sdc2-0/.
FOIA Response 3
View Embed Download
FOIA Response 5
View Embed Download
FOIA Response 2
View Embed Download
From: Branch, Tara (MPD)
07/28/2017
Subject: FW: 2016-FOIA-02107 (Email 3)
Dear CJ Ciaramella,
Attached find a response to your FOIA request. This is the last and final email.
Regards,
Ms. Branch
FOIA Specialist
Metropolitan Police Department
300 Indiana Avenue NW
Room 4153
Washington, DC 20001
We are here to help.
Just like our city, Sustainable DC is evolving! Help us update the plan by telling us what you care about most in this easy 3-minute survey.<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdAD451htG6I4GqSTucXRHhrupb4E-3kpZfE2R-XHBJt47PqQ/viewform?c=0&w=1> Learn more and get involved by visiting
http://www.sustainabledc.org/in-dc/sdc2-0/.
FOIA Response 4 docs
View Embed Download
FOIA Response 1 docs
View Embed Download