Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
#3 at DOJ leaving
Quote | Reply
Rachel Brand is leaving. No reason reported yet. If rod rosentein forced to leave, she was the one. What now?
Last edited by: tyrod1: Feb 9, 18 14:05
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [tyrod1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
More smoke!
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [tyrod1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tyrod1 wrote:
Rachel Brand is leaving. No reason reported yet. If rod rosentein forced to leave, she was the one. What now?

Gettin' out ahead of the indictments and then a (figurative) firing squad, most likely. Just like that dude from DOJ yesterday, David Laufman. Head of the DOJ's counterintelligence division, he says he's leaving for "personal reasons." Riiiiiiight! ;-)

I'm old enough to remember all the shrieking over the FBI's COINTELPRO and the spying folks involved in it were doing against American citizens. Much of what's been going on since 2016 is redolent of that effort, I have to say.

You keep government on a short leash, always. Or you get stuff like this FISA surveillance warrant mess. Bureaucrats can't help themselves, after all. Because they think we exist for their pleasure and purpose, not the other way around.
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
When's IG report coming out? She is repub, hard to figure. They need to abide by code. What part of public servant do they, the bureaucrats, wh and congress, not understand?
Last edited by: tyrod1: Feb 9, 18 14:30
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Indictments for what? She’s only been in the job since this past May.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Very lucrative job in private sector was mentioned. If fire rosenstein still need senate confirm supposedly.
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wiki has her in another position before that:
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (2012–2017)[edit]
In 2012, Brand was appointed by President Barack Obama to serve on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB).[15] She was confirmed on August 2, 2012 to a term ending January 29, 2017.[16]
Brand dissented from several recommendations included in the PCLOB's 2014 report on NSA's bulk metadata collection program under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. She declined to join in the Board's view that the program was illegal as a statutory matter and argued that, in policy terms, it struck a justifiable balance between privacy and national security and, as such, should not be discontinued.[17] The Board, for its part, had recommended the program's termination.[18]
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [dave_w] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dave_w wrote:
Wiki has her in another position before that:
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (2012–2017)[edit]
In 2012, Brand was appointed by President Barack Obama to serve on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB).[15] She was confirmed on August 2, 2012 to a term ending January 29, 2017.[16]
Brand dissented from several recommendations included in the PCLOB's 2014 report on NSA's bulk metadata collection program under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. She declined to join in the Board's view that the program was illegal as a statutory matter and argued that, in policy terms, it struck a justifiable balance between privacy and national security and, as such, should not be discontinued.[17] The Board, for its part, had recommended the program's termination.[18]

Sure, but I’m not sure why that job would put her in danger of indictment either. I’m assuming Kahuna is talking about what he thinks will be the fallout from supposedly corrupt DoJ and FBI stuff related to all the investigations, dossiers, etc. it doesn’t sound like she was involved in those.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, I don't see any direct relation, but making connections where there may be none is what we do here, yes?
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [dave_w] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Going to Walmart. Rich family helping trump in effort to thwart mueller.
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [tyrod1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tyrod1 wrote:
Going to Walmart. Rich family helping trump in effort to thwart mueller.

Dinner was pork chops. Makes as much sense as your post.
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
tyrod1 wrote:
Rachel Brand is leaving. No reason reported yet. If rod rosentein forced to leave, she was the one. What now?


Gettin' out ahead of the indictments and then a (figurative) firing squad, most likely. Just like that dude from DOJ yesterday, David Laufman. Head of the DOJ's counterintelligence division, he says he's leaving for "personal reasons." Riiiiiiight! ;-)

I'm old enough to remember all the shrieking over the FBI's COINTELPRO and the spying folks involved in it were doing against American citizens. Much of what's been going on since 2016 is redolent of that effort, I have to say.

You keep government on a short leash, always. Or you get stuff like this FISA surveillance warrant mess. Bureaucrats can't help themselves, after all. Because they think we exist for their pleasure and purpose, not the other way around.

Do you actually believe any of that stuff, or are you just throwing stuff against the wall?
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [tyrod1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Clearly she's upset that Trump would try to politicize the nation's security apparatus being used to investigate and potentially spy on the President of the United States from the time he was a candidate up through his becoming President.
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [tyrod1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you could earn $200,000 a year working for the government, or $750,000 in salary and millions in stock awards as the chief legal counsel for Walmart, which would you choose?

My 2017 Internet resolutions: No personal attacks; no arguments; and no more than a single view and post per thread.
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [Jim @ LOTO, MO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jim @ LOTO, MO wrote:
If you could earn $200,000 a year working for the government, or $750,000 in salary and millions in stock awards as the chief legal counsel for Walmart, which would you choose?
If you could make $50k per year flying fighters for the USAF or $250k per year as a white collar bus driver for Southwest Airlines, which would you choose?

It shouldn't be all about the money, but for some people it is.



Some say "I can". Others say "I can't". Both manage to be correct.
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [Alvin Tostig] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It shouldn't be all about the money, but for some people it is.

People don't really believe she left just for the money, right?




You're such a Trump ball washer! - Duffy - Feb 8, 17 13:18
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [Jim @ LOTO, MO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe we should pay more. Which job likely more important in grand scheme of things?
Lot of conjecture here: https://hotair.com/...ving-private-sector/
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
tyrod1 wrote:
Rachel Brand is leaving. No reason reported yet. If rod rosentein forced to leave, she was the one. What now?


Gettin' out ahead of the indictments and then a (figurative) firing squad, most likely. Just like that dude from DOJ yesterday, David Laufman. Head of the DOJ's counterintelligence division, he says he's leaving for "personal reasons." Riiiiiiight! ;-)

I'm old enough to remember all the shrieking over the FBI's COINTELPRO and the spying folks involved in it were doing against American citizens. Much of what's been going on since 2016 is redolent of that effort, I have to say.

You keep government on a short leash, always. Or you get stuff like this FISA surveillance warrant mess. Bureaucrats can't help themselves, after all. Because they think we exist for their pleasure and purpose, not the other way around.

Do you actually believe any of that stuff, or are you just throwing stuff against the wall?

As we say in the South, he is full of sh@t as a Christmas turkey!
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [Sanuk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sanuk wrote:
It shouldn't be all about the money, but for some people it is.

People don't really believe she left just for the money, right?



I would guess she was fed up with Trump's lack of support for her boss and her boss's boss.
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
Sanuk wrote:
It shouldn't be all about the money, but for some people it is.

People don't really believe she left just for the money, right?




I would guess she was fed up with Trump's lack of support for her boss and her boss's boss.

And maybe didn't want to find herself "promoted" into the top position by way of having the guys above her fired?

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [Alvin Tostig] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Alvin Tostig wrote:
Jim @ LOTO, MO wrote:
If you could earn $200,000 a year working for the government, or $750,000 in salary and millions in stock awards as the chief legal counsel for Walmart, which would you choose?

If you could make $50k per year flying fighters for the USAF or $250k per year as a white collar bus driver for Southwest Airlines, which would you choose?

It shouldn't be all about the money, but for some people it is.

Your numbers are incredibly off base.
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [JSully] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSully wrote:
Alvin Tostig wrote:
Jim @ LOTO, MO wrote:
If you could earn $200,000 a year working for the government, or $750,000 in salary and millions in stock awards as the chief legal counsel for Walmart, which would you choose?

If you could make $50k per year flying fighters for the USAF or $250k per year as a white collar bus driver for Southwest Airlines, which would you choose?

It shouldn't be all about the money, but for some people it is.


Your numbers are incredibly off base.
Well, I could show you my W-2's from when I was flying fighters in the USAF. I'd have to ask the guys I knew who got out to fly for the airlines if they would let me have theirs. But it wouldn't change the point of my comment.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread, though.



Some say "I can". Others say "I can't". Both manage to be correct.
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
tyrod1 wrote:
Rachel Brand is leaving. No reason reported yet. If rod rosentein forced to leave, she was the one. What now?


Gettin' out ahead of the indictments and then a (figurative) firing squad, most likely. Just like that dude from DOJ yesterday, David Laufman. Head of the DOJ's counterintelligence division, he says he's leaving for "personal reasons." Riiiiiiight! ;-)

I'm old enough to remember all the shrieking over the FBI's COINTELPRO and the spying folks involved in it were doing against American citizens. Much of what's been going on since 2016 is redolent of that effort, I have to say.

You keep government on a short leash, always. Or you get stuff like this FISA surveillance warrant mess. Bureaucrats can't help themselves, after all. Because they think we exist for their pleasure and purpose, not the other way around.


Do you actually believe any of that stuff, or are you just throwing stuff against the wall?

Maybe he is trying to challenge the anti-Trump crowd who have been throwing stuff up against the wall every day going back to November 2016.

Of course he is right about one item in his post. Bureaucrats CAN'T help themselves. And they do think we exist for their pleasure and purpose and we already know they love to spy on the American public, and later lie about it (see Jimmy Clapper, hero of Tryod).
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [jwbeuk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CIA's John Brennan also knowingly lied to congress. On the Brennan and Trump/Comey/collusion front, there is an interesting piece here:
-
How CIA Director John Brennan Targeted James Comey
News of the News: The Russia investigation put the FBI in a bind well before Trump ever landed in the White House
By Lee Smith
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/255020/how-cia-director-john-brennan-targeted-james-comey
Quote Reply
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [dave_w] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dave_w wrote:
CIA's John Brennan also knowingly lied to congress. On the Brennan and Trump/Comey/collusion front, there is an interesting piece here:
-
How CIA Director John Brennan Targeted James Comey
News of the News: The Russia investigation put the FBI in a bind well before Trump ever landed in the White House
By Lee Smith
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/255020/how-cia-director-john-brennan-targeted-james-comey


What's the lie? The article mentions several times Brennan testified to Congress, but I can't find a central, explicit lie related to "RussiaGate" that's the basis of the article.

I'm not trying to claim there's no lying. I'm just a little confused because while the article does mention several times Brennan briefed Congress (particularly in August 2016), it doesn't make it super clear which time he was lying, and what the lie was. It does mention a specific lie about the 2014 issue with the CIA spying on Senators who were investigating the CIA's torture programs. But that seems to have little to do *directly* with the current events....it had nothing directly to do with Russia, Trump, Hillary, Comey, or the FBI.
Quote Reply

Prev Next