Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [tyrod1]
[ In reply to ]
More smoke!
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [tyrod1]
[ In reply to ]
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.
"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [big kahuna]
[ In reply to ]
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [big kahuna]
[ In reply to ]
Indictments for what? She’s only been in the job since this past May.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [slowguy]
[ In reply to ]
Very lucrative job in private sector was mentioned. If fire rosenstein still need senate confirm supposedly.
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [slowguy]
[ In reply to ]
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]
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]
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [dave_w]
[ In reply to ]
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...)
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [slowguy]
[ In reply to ]
Yeah, I don't see any direct relation, but making connections where there may be none is what we do here, yes?
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [dave_w]
[ In reply to ]
Going to Walmart. Rich family helping trump in effort to thwart mueller.
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [tyrod1]
[ In reply to ]
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.
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [big kahuna]
[ In reply to ]
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?
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [tyrod1]
[ In reply to ]
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.
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [tyrod1]
[ In reply to ]
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?
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [Jim @ LOTO, MO]
[ In reply to ]
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?It shouldn't be all about the money, but for some people it is.
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [Alvin Tostig]
[ In reply to ]
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?
People don't really believe she left just for the money, right?
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [Jim @ LOTO, MO]
[ In reply to ]
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/
Lot of conjecture here: https://hotair.com/...ving-private-sector/
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [trail]
[ In reply to ]
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!
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [Sanuk]
[ In reply to ]
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.
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [Kay Serrar]
[ In reply to ]
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...)
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [Alvin Tostig]
[ In reply to ]
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.
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [JSully]
[ In reply to ]
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.
Thanks for your contribution to the thread, though.
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [trail]
[ In reply to ]
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).
Re: #3 at DOJ leaving [jwbeuk]
[ In reply to ]
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
-
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
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.