US Elections (& Politics) :)

 
FBI Concerned Jan. 6 Footage Would Expose Undercover Agents, Informants: Whistleblower
FBI Concerned Jan. 6 Footage Would Expose Undercover Agents, Informants: Whistleblower | ZeroHedge

FBI officials were concerned that footage from inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, would show undercover agents and confidential informants, a whistleblower said in testimony revealed on May 18.

George Hill, a retired supervisory intelligence analyst who worked out of the FBI’s Boston field office, recounted that the bureau’s Washington field office (WFO) pressured officials in Boston to open investigations on 138 people who attended a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, even though there were no indications the people violated the law.

Boston officials pushed back, saying they would need evidence, such as footage of individuals inside the Capitol, to open investigations of the individuals.

“Happy to do it. Show us where they were inside the Capitol, and we’ll look into it,” one official was quoted as saying.

We can’t show you those videos unless you can tell us the exact time and place those individuals were inside the Capitol,” WFO officials responded, according to Hill.

Hill said Boston officials questioned why they couldn’t get access to the tranche of some 11,000 hours of footage from inside the Capitol.

Because there may be—may be—UCs, undercover officers, or … confidential human sources, on those videos whose identity we need to protect,” Washington-based officials responded.


 
FBI Concerned Jan. 6 Footage Would Expose Undercover Agents, Informants: Whistleblower
FBI Concerned Jan. 6 Footage Would Expose Undercover Agents, Informants: Whistleblower | ZeroHedge

FBI officials were concerned that footage from inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, would show undercover agents and confidential informants, a whistleblower said in testimony revealed on May 18.

George Hill, a retired supervisory intelligence analyst who worked out of the FBI’s Boston field office, recounted that the bureau’s Washington field office (WFO) pressured officials in Boston to open investigations on 138 people who attended a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, even though there were no indications the people violated the law.

Boston officials pushed back, saying they would need evidence, such as footage of individuals inside the Capitol, to open investigations of the individuals.

“Happy to do it. Show us where they were inside the Capitol, and we’ll look into it,” one official was quoted as saying.

We can’t show you those videos unless you can tell us the exact time and place those individuals were inside the Capitol,” WFO officials responded, according to Hill.

Hill said Boston officials questioned why they couldn’t get access to the tranche of some 11,000 hours of footage from inside the Capitol.

Because there may be—may be—UCs, undercover officers, or … confidential human sources, on those videos whose identity we need to protect,” Washington-based officials responded.




I heard something on a podcast that I hadn't heard before. Supposedly within the FBI they declare that FBI stands for Fidelity Bravery Integrity. Nowadays that sounds like a really bad joke even though there are surely agents in there that applies to, but the leadership needs a house cleaning at minimum.
 
I heard something on a podcast that I hadn't heard before. Supposedly within the FBI they declare that FBI stands for Fidelity Bravery Integrity. Nowadays that sounds like a really bad joke even though there are surely agents in there that applies to, but the leadership needs a house cleaning at minimum.
While laughable this day and age, this is correct. It's part of their seal:

fbi logo.jpeg
 
Reps. Jim Jordan, Mike Turner Threaten To Subpoena CIA In Hunter Biden Laptop Investigation

Reps. Jim Jordan, Mike Turner Threaten To Subpoena CIA In Hunter Biden Laptop Investigation | ZeroHedge

According to the May 10 Republican report (pdf), former CIA officials played an active role in recruiting signatories for the letter discrediting the Hunter Biden laptop reports.

The report alleges U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was working for the Biden campaign at the time, reached out to former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell on Oct. 17, 2020, to discuss the intelligence community letter. Morell, an Obama-era CIA official, was quick to agree to the plan and actively recruited other signatories.

On Oct. 19, 2020, two days after discussing the letter with Blinken, Morell sent a final draft of the letter to the PCRB for review. Morell told the CIA board “[t]his is a rush job, as it need to get out as soon as possible.” According to the Republican report, the signatories hoped to give then-candidate Joe Biden a “talking point” to defend against the Hunter Biden laptop reporting during his final presidential debate with Donald Trump on Oct. 22, 2020.
 
"Adversarial Actors, Home And Abroad"

"Adversarial Actors, Home And Abroad" | ZeroHedge

.......Now consider what “promoters of foreign or other adversarial entities” means? The only other adversarial entity that isn’t foreign is … domestic. Can you trust, given what’s above, that this designation — “other adversarial entities” — is reserved just for Proud Boy types?

About this, Matt Taibbi writes (emphasis mine):

First of all, this notion that there may be fabrications mixed in with real content is a suggestion that pops up somewhere in nearly every one of these leak stories, even if all the material proves to be real (old friend Malcolm Nance did the job in 2016 in suggesting the Podesta leaks were “riddled with forgeries”). More importantly however, that last line is a great example of what former cybersecurity official and Foundation for Freedom Online head Mike Benz calls the “foreign-domestic switcheroo.”

It’s the basic rhetorical trick of the censorship age: raise a fuss about a foreign threat, using it as a battering ram to get everyone from congress to the tech companies to submit to increased regulation and surveillance. Then, slowly, adjust your aim to domestic targets. You can see the subtlety: the original Stanford piece tries to stick to railing against “disinformation” and information from “foreign adversaries,” but the later paper circulated by Aspen slips in, ever so slightly, a new category of dubious source: “foreign or other adversarial entities.”

These rhetorical devices are essential. It would be preposterous to form (as Stanford did) an “Information Warfare Working Group” if readers knew the “war” being contemplated was against domestic voices. … But if you start by focusing on Russians and only later mention as an afterthought “other adversarial entities,” you can frame things however you want, from espionage to warfare. As reader O’Neill correctly pointed out, “they are now getting close to being explicit about the fact that their motivation for suppressing news is to fight domestic political adversaries.”

You don’t have to be a lover of these sources to hate what’s you’ve just found out. And I think it’s reasonable to fear, even if you fear Trump more than God herself, what our security agencies do with domestic power.

Regime Change
The last stone dropped in the pond is the oldest one. Before most of you were born, the halls of power fully understood that our security agencies, birthed in the Soviet threat, were fully capable — even tasked with the job — of making sure the global world was a safe American playground.

The list of American-led coups in other countries is long as your leg and both arms. Start here to see most of it. Do these agencies act domestically as they do abroad? The FBI sure does. But what about the CIA and the rest of the alphabet community?

Here’s what Robert Kennedy, the man who was murdered on his way to the 1968 nomination, thought of the murder that felled his brother Jack in 1963 (via The Hill, emphasis mine):

[Robert] Kennedy Jr. said the first call his father, former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, made after learning his uncle had been shot was to a CIA desk officer.
My father said to him, ‘Did your people do this?’” Kennedy Jr. told Fox News’s “Hannity” on Monday.
“His next call was to [Enrique Ruiz-Williams], who was one of the Cuban Bay of Pigs leaders who had remained very, very close to our family and to my father,” he continued. “My father asked him the same question.”
Kennedy Jr. said his father then called John McCone, the head of the CIA, and asked him to come to the family’s house.
“When I came home [from] Sidwell Friends School, my father was walking in the yard with John McCone, and my father was posing the same question to him, ‘Was it our people who did this to my brother?’” he said. “It was my father’s first instinct that the agency had killed his brother.

The Hill later tags this story as a “conspiracy theory,” no doubt to distance itself from both charge and source. But the underlying report is nonetheless true, or RFK Jr. is lying.