The Washington TIMES is the Moonie paper, Dumbshit. The EXAMINER is owned by Phillip Anschutz.D1B wrote:Dawg, we reached out enough to Tbum. He needs to help himself.houndawg wrote:
quotes the Moonie's paper and isn't kidding.....
..... and here we thought your histrionics were just a ploy for attention.. you gotta be careful with meds that strong, T, have you talked to your doctor recently?
Get some help, Tbutthole67.travelinman67 wrote:The Washington TIMES is the Moonie paper, Dumbshit. The EXAMINER is owned by Phillip Anschutz.D1B wrote:
Dawg, we reached out enough to Tbum. He needs to help himself.
Dumb1Boy and Densedawg...
...Dimwit 1 and Dimwit 2...
Thanks for reminding me, Cappy.Cap'n Cat wrote: Blah, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah...
LYING, UNAMERICAN, DONK FAIL!!!Stonewalled author Attkisson to testify on Obama’s AG nominee
By Julian Hattem - 01/26/15 07:09 PM EST
A former CBS investigative reporter who has filed a $35 million lawsuit against the Obama administration for hacking will be among the witnesses at a hearing on President Obama's attorney general nominee.Sharyl Attkisson has accused the Obama administration of breaking into her computer and phone after she reported stories that were critical of the administration, such as the events surrounding the 2012 attack on an American compound in Benghazi, Libya, and the failed “Fast and Furious” operation. She told her story in the book "Stonewalled".
She will testify during this week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Loretta Lynch, Obama’s nominee to replace Eric Holder as attorney general, a testimony announced by panel Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) Monday evening. Also testifying will be Catherine Engelbrecht, the founder of the Tea Party-aligned True the Vote, which was unfairly targeted by the IRS, she has said, when it attempted to seek tax-exempt status.The two will testify separately from Lynch, on a second panel alongside legal experts and former and current law enforcement officials.
The inclusion of Attkisson and Engelbrecht points to a fiery hearing that could turn into a referendum on Holder's time at the helm of the Justice Department.Conservatives accused Holder of politicizing his post to help Obama, and have pointed to the alleged hacking of Attkisson’s devices and the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups as evidence.Both Attkisson and Engelbrecht have sued the Obama administration over the actions.A federal judge tossed out the case brought by Engelbrecht and other groups last October. Attkisson filed her lawsuit just this month and is seeking $35 million. The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.
travelinman67 wrote:Cappy...weazy old troll.
Cap,
Don't you ever grow tired of having your intellectual ass kicked...
...continually?
To be fair, even the "slowest" ideologues eventually wise up.
Give life a chance. You'll appreciate the world more when people laugh with you rather than at you.
Feel threatened much?Cap'n Cat wrote:travelinman67 wrote:Cappy...weazy old troll.
Cap,
Don't you ever grow tired of having your intellectual ass kicked...
...continually?
To be fair, even the "slowest" ideologues eventually wise up.
Give life a chance. You'll appreciate the world more when people laugh with you rather than at you.
Here we go. You silence the fucker in every motherfucking thread cuz you're faster, smarter and better-looking than him and he comes with this shit again.
Lemme tell ya' sumpin, Sacramento Fats - the only ass you kick, you morbidly obese porkfat cocksucker, is that of your Vietnamese landscaper who lives as a prisoner in your garage.
As for your flavorless wall-of-text posts, we suffer through them because you cannot, for the corpulent life of yourself, formulate original thoughts. You are a most rotund Limbaugh parrot and a fleshy Hannity douche-o-phile.
You entertain no one here and your negative numbers outweigh any remote positives, just as you outweigh a Lincoln Navigator towing an ocean liner, you pompous, self-important blob of congealed whale blubber.
Other than that, have a good weekend.
Hey, chubs, let's get this straight - you are the fattest bully on this board. No one digs you. You're a roly-poly jerkoff blowhard. You're filled with nothing but hate and you're a sanctimonious fuckhead.travelinman67 wrote:Feel threatened much?Cap'n Cat wrote:
Here we go. You silence the fucker in every motherfucking thread cuz you're faster, smarter and better-looking than him and he comes with this shit again.
Lemme tell ya' sumpin, Sacramento Fats - the only ass you kick, you morbidly obese porkfat cocksucker, is that of your Vietnamese landscaper who lives as a prisoner in your garage.
As for your flavorless wall-of-text posts, we suffer through them because you cannot, for the corpulent life of yourself, formulate original thoughts. You are a most rotund Limbaugh parrot and a fleshy Hannity douche-o-phile.
You entertain no one here and your negative numbers outweigh any remote positives, just as you outweigh a Lincoln Navigator towing an ocean liner, you pompous, self-important blob of congealed whale blubber.
Other than that, have a good weekend.
Cappy, you and your genetic flotsam are threatened simply because you've become accustomed to people shying from your bullying. I throw you off balance. Get used to it, or not...I don't care.
But like I've said, life's more enjoyable when you speak the truth.
So, dishonesty, threats and intimidation to block the truth have become the Progressive's standard.Sharyl Attkisson Testifies: If You Cross The Obama Administration, You Will Be Attacked and Punished
Jan. 29, 2015
Investigative reporter and author of. Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's WashingtonSharyl Attkisson testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday as part of attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch's confirmation hearing. During her testimony, Attkisson detailed government intimidation she has endured under the Obama administration, particularly through the Department of Justice, for pursuing investigative stories unfavorable to the administration. Attkisson has been an investigative reporter for decades and has pursued stories of government corruption, waste, fraud and abuse in both political parties.
The job of getting at the truth has never been more difficult. Facets of federal government have isolated themselves from the public they serve. They covet and withhold public information that we as citizens own. They bully and threaten access of journalists who do their jobs, news organizations that publish stories they don't like and whistleblowers who dare to tell the truth," Attkisson said. "When I reported on factual contradictions in the Administration's accounts regarding Fast and Furious, pushback included a frenzied campaign with White House officials trying to chill the reporting by calling and emailing my superiors and colleagues, using surrogate bloggers to advance false claims, one White House official got so mad he angrily cussed me out. The Justice Department used its authority with building security to handpick reports allowed to attend a Fast and Furious briefing, refusing to clear me into the public Justice Department building.""Let me emphasize that my reporting was factually indisputable, government officials weren't angry because I was doing my job poorly, they were panicked because I was doing my job well," she added.Attkisson detailed revelations about the government monitoring her work and personal computers with keystroke software, password capture technology and through Skype, which was used to listen in on audio conversations. DOJ and the FBI have stonewalled Freedom of Information requests submitted more than 500 days ago. "It matters not that when caught government promises to dial back, or that James Rosen gets an apology, the message has already been received: If you cross this administration with perfectly accurate reporting they don't like, you will be attacked and punished. You and your sources will be subjected to the kind of surveillance devised for enemies of the state," she said. "The nominee, if confirmed, should chart a new path to reject the damaging policies and practices that have been used by others in the past. If we aren't brave enough to confront these concerns, it could do serious long-term damage to the supposedly free press."
On Wednesday, Lynch tried to distance herself from Holder during her own testimony to the Committee.
Cap'n Cat wrote:Angry old Conk. Tbag on CS:
travelinman67 wrote:Once again, you prove my assertion.
You cannot debate the merits of your ideology, so you resort SOLELY to trollish blather.
And as long as I'm talking about merits, here's the follow up discussing Attkisson's congressional testimony thus week...
So, dishonesty, threats and intimidation to block the truth have become the Progressive's standard.Sharyl Attkisson Testifies: If You Cross The Obama Administration, You Will Be Attacked and Punished
Jan. 29, 2015
Investigative reporter and author of. Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's WashingtonSharyl Attkisson testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday as part of attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch's confirmation hearing. During her testimony, Attkisson detailed government intimidation she has endured under the Obama administration, particularly through the Department of Justice, for pursuing investigative stories unfavorable to the administration. Attkisson has been an investigative reporter for decades and has pursued stories of government corruption, waste, fraud and abuse in both political parties.
The job of getting at the truth has never been more difficult. Facets of federal government have isolated themselves from the public they serve. They covet and withhold public information that we as citizens own. They bully and threaten access of journalists who do their jobs, news organizations that publish stories they don't like and whistleblowers who dare to tell the truth," Attkisson said. "When I reported on factual contradictions in the Administration's accounts regarding Fast and Furious, pushback included a frenzied campaign with White House officials trying to chill the reporting by calling and emailing my superiors and colleagues, using surrogate bloggers to advance false claims, one White House official got so mad he angrily cussed me out. The Justice Department used its authority with building security to handpick reports allowed to attend a Fast and Furious briefing, refusing to clear me into the public Justice Department building.""Let me emphasize that my reporting was factually indisputable, government officials weren't angry because I was doing my job poorly, they were panicked because I was doing my job well," she added.Attkisson detailed revelations about the government monitoring her work and personal computers with keystroke software, password capture technology and through Skype, which was used to listen in on audio conversations. DOJ and the FBI have stonewalled Freedom of Information requests submitted more than 500 days ago. "It matters not that when caught government promises to dial back, or that James Rosen gets an apology, the message has already been received: If you cross this administration with perfectly accurate reporting they don't like, you will be attacked and punished. You and your sources will be subjected to the kind of surveillance devised for enemies of the state," she said. "The nominee, if confirmed, should chart a new path to reject the damaging policies and practices that have been used by others in the past. If we aren't brave enough to confront these concerns, it could do serious long-term damage to the supposedly free press."
On Wednesday, Lynch tried to distance herself from Holder during her own testimony to the Committee.
kalm wrote:Tman, what do you think of the James Risen case?
Haven't studied Risen in detail. In Risen, it sounds as though a rogue NSA leak attempted to spin it into a "whistleblower" defense. Regardless, I'm an unabashed believer in the shield law/concept. The problem emanated from poor employee screening/mismanagement of security clearance, NOT press indiscretion.kalm wrote:kalm wrote:Tman, what do you think of the James Risen case?
Every security clearance is"need to know". Having gone through the process more recently than you, I can reassure you that it's time consuming, costly and an inconvenience to most, if not all applicants and interviewers. Besides, most people in defense will fall into that category, even someone like a low level program manager. Next to engineering and other trade secrets, finances and risks are critical. I worked with the Australians in a coop project and I wasn't allowed to let them know our risks, even though it affected them. They just weren't, "authorized to know that."travelinman67 wrote:Haven't studied Risen in detail. In Risen, it sounds as though a rogue NSA leak attempted to spin it into a "whistleblower" defense. Regardless, I'm an unabashed believer in the shield law/concept. The problem emanated from poor employee screening/mismanagement of security clearance, NOT press indiscretion.kalm wrote:
Anyone within the "need-to-know" scope of national defense-critical intelligence should be polygraphed annually, INCLUDING ELECTED OFFICIALS.
Sterling was a disgruntled ex employee, and the CIA knew as early as 2002 that he was leaking to a reporter, yet took no action and only monitored him until 2010. Sterling had a screw loose. You don't see a problem that key corporate executives, virtually all law enforcement, even the military, submit candidates to extensive psychological profile examinations specifically designed to determine a candidate's moral integrity, yet in 1993 when the CIA hired Sterling right out of law school, his flaws were not identified?Ibanez wrote:Every security clearance is"need to know". Having gone through the process more recently than you, I can reassure you that it's time consuming, costly and an inconvenience to most, if not all applicants and interviewers. Besides, most people in defense will fall into that category, even someone like a low level program manager. Next to engineering and other trade secrets, finances and risks are critical. I worked with the Australians in a coop project and I wasn't allowed to let them know our risks, even though it affected them. They just weren't, "authorized to know that."travelinman67 wrote:
Haven't studied Risen in detail. In Risen, it sounds as though a rogue NSA leak attempted to spin it into a "whistleblower" defense. Regardless, I'm an unabashed believer in the shield law/concept. The problem emanated from poor employee screening/mismanagement of security clearance, NOT press indiscretion.
Anyone within the "need-to-know" scope of national defense-critical intelligence should be polygraphed annually, INCLUDING ELECTED OFFICIALS.
Poly graphing won't cure the problem. The problem can't be fixed, it's institutional and political.
I get it. But the manpower to conduct those polygraph tests would be 24/7, 365 and the cost would have Republicans seeing redtravelinman67 wrote:Sterling was a disgruntled ex employee, and the CIA knew as early as 2002 that he was leaking to a reporter, yet took no action and only monitored him until 2010. Sterling had a screw loose. You don't see a problem that key corporate executives, virtually all law enforcement, even the military, submit candidates to extensive psychological profile examinations specifically designed to determine a candidate's moral integrity, yet in 1993 when the CIA hired Sterling right out of law school, his flaws were not identified?Ibanez wrote:
Every security clearance is"need to know". Having gone through the process more recently than you, I can reassure you that it's time consuming, costly and an inconvenience to most, if not all applicants and interviewers. Besides, most people in defense will fall into that category, even someone like a low level program manager. Next to engineering and other trade secrets, finances and risks are critical. I worked with the Australians in a coop project and I wasn't allowed to let them know our risks, even though it affected them. They just weren't, "authorized to know that."
Poly graphing won't cure the problem. The problem can't be fixed, it's institutional and political.
He had apparently been passed over for advancement within his first 7 years prompting his suit/dispute which lead to his firing.
He had a screw loose that I'm confident would have been uncovered by a thorough examination.
We're not talking corporate piracy, we're talking national security.
In addition to costly and time consuming, you forgot to mention that we do it wrong by design. Clearance investigators waste a lot of time (not their fault) focusing on things like disgraceful behaviors that could lead to blackmail. Thats all well and good except that those behaviors mainly refer to marital infidelity. DoS only recently got rid of questions about being gay. One day, they just dropped it. So now, I wont betray my country if Im caught in the closet- but Im still a threat if I cheat on my wife.Ibanez wrote:Every security clearance is"need to know". Having gone through the process more recently than you, I can reassure you that it's time consuming, costly and an inconvenience to most, if not all applicants and interviewers. Besides, most people in defense will fall into that category, even someone like a low level program manager. Next to engineering and other trade secrets, finances and risks are critical. I worked with the Australians in a coop project and I wasn't allowed to let them know our risks, even though it affected them. They just weren't, "authorized to know that."travelinman67 wrote:
Haven't studied Risen in detail. In Risen, it sounds as though a rogue NSA leak attempted to spin it into a "whistleblower" defense. Regardless, I'm an unabashed believer in the shield law/concept. The problem emanated from poor employee screening/mismanagement of security clearance, NOT press indiscretion.
Anyone within the "need-to-know" scope of national defense-critical intelligence should be polygraphed annually, INCLUDING ELECTED OFFICIALS.
Poly graphing won't cure the problem. The problem can't be fixed, it's institutional and political.
Agree.CID1990 wrote:In addition to costly and time consuming, you forgot to mention that we do it wrong by design. Clearance investigators waste a lot of time (not their fault) focusing on things like disgraceful behaviors that could lead to blackmail. Thats all well and good except that those behaviors mainly refer to marital infidelity. DoS only recently got rid of questions about being gay. One day, they just dropped it. So now, I wont betray my country if Im caught in the closet- but Im still a threat if I cheat on my wife.Ibanez wrote:
Every security clearance is"need to know". Having gone through the process more recently than you, I can reassure you that it's time consuming, costly and an inconvenience to most, if not all applicants and interviewers. Besides, most people in defense will fall into that category, even someone like a low level program manager. Next to engineering and other trade secrets, finances and risks are critical. I worked with the Australians in a coop project and I wasn't allowed to let them know our risks, even though it affected them. They just weren't, "authorized to know that."
Poly graphing won't cure the problem. The problem can't be fixed, it's institutional and political.
One thing that would clean a lot of these issues is to go after people who commit espionage aggressively. All of them- not just the ones who make the news.
And for instances of gross malfeasance like in the Hanssen case we should default to the death penalty.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... le/385007/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;In a speech at Washington and Lee University, Michael Hayden, a former head of both the CIA and NSA, opined on signals intelligence under the Constitution, arguing that what the 4th Amendment forbids changed after September 11, 2001. He noted that "unreasonable search and seizure," is prohibited under the Constitution, but cast it as a living document, with "reasonableness" determined by "the totality of circumstances in which we find ourselves in history."
He explained that as the NSA's leader, tactics he found unreasonable on September 10, 2001 struck him as reasonable the next day, after roughly 3,000 were killed. "I actually started to do different things," he said. "And I didn't need to ask 'mother, may I' from the Congress or the president or anyone else. It was within my charter, but in terms of the mature judgment about what's reasonable and what's not reasonable, the death of 3,000 countrymen kind of took me in a direction over here, perfectly within my authority, but a different place than the one in which I was located before the attacks took place. So if we're going to draw this line I think we have to understand that it's kind of a movable feast here."
Reporters covering the House Democrats' retreat in Philadelphia this week
Reporters are being escorted to and from the restroom and lobby and are being barred from entering the hotel outside of scheduled events, even if they've been invited by a member of Congress.
During Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks at the retreat Friday, reporters were required to have a staff member, usually a junior member of the press team, escort them when going to the bathroom or to the lobby.
The incident is reminiscent of the Clinton Global Initiative conference in September, where reporters were being escorted by staff right up to the bathroom stall.
Flopping Aces ^ | 01-31-15 | DrJohn
As a candidate on 2008 Obama claimed to support whistleblowers. His website claimed that whistleblowing events were "acts of courage and patriotism" that "should be encouraged rather than stifled as they have been during the Bush administration."
The Obama regime has conducted a war on whistleblowers like none in history. It's so aggressive that even Common Dreams says the Obama administration has reached "a new low."
"The Sterling case...sends a clear message to people in government service: You won’t get in trouble as long as you do what you’re told (even torture people). But if you talk to a reporter and tell him something we want kept secret, we will spare no effort to destroy you."
Yep.Bronco wrote:Travelinman67 doing the work that the media won't cover...nice job
Sounds like the BHO/Hillary gangs are getting paranoid
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... html?ml=po" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Reporters covering the House Democrats' retreat in Philadelphia this week
Reporters are being escorted to and from the restroom and lobby and are being barred from entering the hotel outside of scheduled events, even if they've been invited by a member of Congress.
During Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks at the retreat Friday, reporters were required to have a staff member, usually a junior member of the press team, escort them when going to the bathroom or to the lobby.
The incident is reminiscent of the Clinton Global Initiative conference in September, where reporters were being escorted by staff right up to the bathroom stall.
Good story here
Those just reading this site...hope you check it out
The usual suspects won't
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Flopping Aces ^ | 01-31-15 | DrJohn
As a candidate on 2008 Obama claimed to support whistleblowers. His website claimed that whistleblowing events were "acts of courage and patriotism" that "should be encouraged rather than stifled as they have been during the Bush administration."
The Obama regime has conducted a war on whistleblowers like none in history. It's so aggressive that even Common Dreams says the Obama administration has reached "a new low."
"The Sterling case...sends a clear message to people in government service: You won’t get in trouble as long as you do what you’re told (even torture people). But if you talk to a reporter and tell him something we want kept secret, we will spare no effort to destroy you."
Like I previously said, I don't know all the details but from what I've read Sterling was not a "whistleblower", and Risen's article did reveal operational intelligence that compromised active terrorism investigations. Neither was a noble patriot.kalm wrote:Sterling may indeed deserve jail but I'm glad we have whistleblowers and journalist like Risen, Greenwald, and Poitras with the guts to report on it - unlike the NYT. The CIA and NSA have been proven to be out of control and irreverent toward the constitution.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... le/385007/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;In a speech at Washington and Lee University, Michael Hayden, a former head of both the CIA and NSA, opined on signals intelligence under the Constitution, arguing that what the 4th Amendment forbids changed after September 11, 2001. He noted that "unreasonable search and seizure," is prohibited under the Constitution, but cast it as a living document, with "reasonableness" determined by "the totality of circumstances in which we find ourselves in history."
He explained that as the NSA's leader, tactics he found unreasonable on September 10, 2001 struck him as reasonable the next day, after roughly 3,000 were killed. "I actually started to do different things," he said. "And I didn't need to ask 'mother, may I' from the Congress or the president or anyone else. It was within my charter, but in terms of the mature judgment about what's reasonable and what's not reasonable, the death of 3,000 countrymen kind of took me in a direction over here, perfectly within my authority, but a different place than the one in which I was located before the attacks took place. So if we're going to draw this line I think we have to understand that it's kind of a movable feast here."
