Showing posts with label Mueller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mueller. Show all posts
Sunday, July 28, 2019
Spare Me the Purity Racket
By Maureen Dowd
Opinion Columnist
July 27, 2019
Nancy Pelosi, at lectern, with other House Democrats at the Capitol Thursday to talk about the first 200 days of the 116th Congress.CreditCreditErin Schaff/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — After I interviewed Nancy Pelosi a few weeks ago, The HuffPost huffed that we were Dreaded Elites because we were eating chocolates and — horror of horrors — the speaker had on some good pumps.
Then this week, lefty Twitter erected a digital guillotine because I had a book party for my friend Carl Hulse, The Times’s authority on Capitol Hill for decades, attended by family, journalists, Hill denizens and a smattering of lawmakers, including Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Susan Collins.
I, the daughter of a D.C. cop, and Carl, the son of an Illinois plumber, were hilariously painted as decadent aristocrats reveling like Marie Antoinette when we should have been knitting like Madame Defarge.
Yo, proletariat: If the Democratic Party is going to be against chocolate, high heels, parties and fun, you’ve lost me. And I’ve got some bad news for you about 2020.
The progressives are the modern Puritans. The Massachusetts Bay Colony is alive and well on the Potomac and Twitter.
They eviscerate their natural allies for not being pure enough while placing all their hopes in a color-inside-the-lines lifelong Republican prosecutor appointed by Ronald Reagan.
The politics of purism makes people stupid. And nasty.
My father stayed up all night the night Truman was elected because he was so excited. I would like to stay up ’til dawn the night a Democrat wins next year because I’m so excited to see the moment when the despicable Donald Trump lumbers into a Marine helicopter and flies away for good.
Tuesday, April 09, 2019
Saturday, June 17, 2017
Ben Carson breaks with Trump over Mueller
Ben Carson: Give Mueller a chance on Russia probe
Julia Manchester12 hrs ago
© Provided by The Hill Ben Carson: Give Mueller a chance on Russia probe
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson says special counsel Robert Mueller should be given a "chance" to conduct a fair investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
"I would give him the chance to see if he could do that because if there's nothing there - he's not gonna find anything anyway," Carson told Fox News Radio in an interview Friday.
That has been the case now for nearly a year - there's nothing to find, that's why they keep going down these empty rabbit holes. That will continue to be the case because there's nothing there," Carson added.
The Cabinet official called the investigation "frustrating," saying it was impeding the Trump administration's productivity.
"It's frustrating because it keeps us from getting to the things that need to be done, and I'm not sure that that isn't the real reason for it," he said.
Carson's comments come as speculation mounts that Trump could attempt to fire Mueller, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller to lead the Russia investigation last month.
The president appeared to lash out at Rosenstein in a tweet Friday lamenting a "witch hunt," saying he was under investigation for firing of FBI Director James Comey last month "by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!"
Source
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson says special counsel Robert Mueller should be given a "chance" to conduct a fair investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
"I would give him the chance to see if he could do that because if there's nothing there - he's not gonna find anything anyway," Carson told Fox News Radio in an interview Friday.
That has been the case now for nearly a year - there's nothing to find, that's why they keep going down these empty rabbit holes. That will continue to be the case because there's nothing there," Carson added.
The Cabinet official called the investigation "frustrating," saying it was impeding the Trump administration's productivity.
"It's frustrating because it keeps us from getting to the things that need to be done, and I'm not sure that that isn't the real reason for it," he said.
Carson's comments come as speculation mounts that Trump could attempt to fire Mueller, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller to lead the Russia investigation last month.
The president appeared to lash out at Rosenstein in a tweet Friday lamenting a "witch hunt," saying he was under investigation for firing of FBI Director James Comey last month "by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!"
Source
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
FBI director tells Congress agency uses drones for surveillance on U.S. soil
By Michael O’Brien , Political Reporter, NBC News
FBI director Robert Mueller said Wednesday that the nation's top law enforcement bureau uses drones to conduct surveillance on U.S. soil, though only on a "very, very minimal basis."
Mueller, the FBI director since 2001 who is set to retire this year, acknowledged that his agency uses drones in its investigative and law enforcement practices, and is further working to establish better guidelines for the use of drones.
"We are in the early stages of doing that, and I will tell you that our footprint is very small, we have very few, and have limited use. And we're exploring not only the use, but the necessary guidelines for that use," Mueller told senators at a hearing this morning when asked about the use of drones.
FBI Director Robert Mueller testifies about the domestic use of drones during a hearing on Capitol Hill Wednesday.
The government's use of drones on U.S. soil has been well-documented. The Department of Homeland Security, for instance, employs aerial drones to help police the United States border with Mexico.
Mueller said that drones are used for surveillance, though, only on a "seldom" basis.
The FBI director's words come amid a simmering national debate in recent months about what limits should be placed on the government in its law enforcement and anti-terrorism activities.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for instance, waged a filibuster challenging President Barack Obama's use of drones in pursuing terrorist suspects. Paul won an affirmation from the administration that it was their thought that it would be illegal for the government to use a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on American soil.
The drones that have come into practice in the United States, though, are different from the armed, militarized drones used in military operations.
Still, the exchange reflects broader concerns about the scope of government power, represented most recently and most vividly by revelations about the National Security Agency's collection of phone and internet "meta-data" for analysis.
Mueller, like virtually every other administration official and senior lawmaker who has spoken about the NSA practices in recent weeks, defended the NSA's activities as an invaluable tool in the government's pursuit of terrorist suspects.
"If we're going to prevent terrorist attacks, we have to be on their communications," Mueller said during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "You never know which dot will be critical. You need as many as you can get. Let there be no mistake, there would be fewer dots to connect if you don't have a data base that retains those records."
As to the prosecution of Edward Snowden, the self-admitted leaker of information about NSA monitoring, Mueller said the leak had done legitimate harm to U.S. safety, and vowed to pursue Snowden.
"As to the person who has admitted to making these disclosures, he is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation," Mueller said. "These disclosures have caused significant harm to our nation and to our safety, and we are taking all necessary steps to hold accountable that person for these disclosures."
NBC's Pete Williams contributed to this report.
This story was originally published on Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:41 PM EDT
Source
.
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
U.S. Is Weighing Wide Overhaul of Wiretap Laws
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: May 7, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, resolving years of internal debate, is on the verge of backing a Federal Bureau of Investigation plan for a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.
Christopher Gregory/The New York Times
Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, second from left, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in March.
The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued that the bureau’s ability to carry out court-approved eavesdropping on suspects is “going dark” as communications technology evolves, and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders. That proposal, however, bogged down amid concerns by other agencies, like the Commerce Department, about quashing Silicon Valley innovation.
While the F.B.I.’s original proposal would have required Internet communications services to each build in a wiretapping capacity, the revised one, which must now be reviewed by the White House, focuses on fining companies that do not comply with wiretap orders. The difference, officials say, means that start-ups with a small number of users would have fewer worries about wiretapping issues unless the companies became popular enough to come to the Justice Department’s attention.
Still, the plan is likely to set off a debate over the future of the Internet if the White House submits it to Congress, according to lawyers for technology companies and advocates of Internet privacy and freedom.
“I think the F.B.I.’s proposal would render Internet communications less secure and more vulnerable to hackers and identity thieves,” said Gregory T. Nojeim of the Center for Democracy and Technology. “It would also mean that innovators who want to avoid new and expensive mandates will take their innovations abroad and develop them there, where there aren’t the same mandates.”
Andrew Weissmann, the general counsel of the F.B.I., said in a statement that the proposal was aimed only at preserving law enforcement officials’ longstanding ability to investigate suspected criminals, spies and terrorists subject to a court’s permission.
“This doesn’t create any new legal surveillance authority,” he said. “This always requires a court order. None of the ‘going dark’ solutions would do anything except update the law given means of modern communications.”
A central element of the F.B.I.’s 2010 proposal was to expand the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act — a 1994 law that already requires phone and network carriers to build interception capabilities into their systems — so that it would also cover Internet-based services that allow people to converse. But the bureau has now largely moved away from that one-size-fits-all mandate.
Instead, the new proposal focuses on strengthening wiretap orders issued by judges. Currently, such orders instruct recipients to provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies, leaving wiggle room for companies to say they tried but could not make the technology work. Under the new proposal, providers could be ordered to comply, and judges could impose fines if they did not. The shift in thinking toward the judicial fines was first reported by The Washington Post, and additional details were described to The New York Times by several officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Under the proposal, officials said, for a company to be eligible for the strictest deadlines and fines — starting at $25,000 a day — it must first have been put on notice that it needed surveillance capabilities, triggering a 30-day period to consult with the government on any technical problems.
Such notice could be the receipt of its first wiretap order or a warning from the attorney general that it might receive a surveillance request in the future, officials said, arguing that most small start-ups would never receive either.
Michael Sussman, a former Justice Department lawyer who advises communications providers, said that aspect of the plan appeared to be modeled on a British law, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000.
Foreign-based communications services that do business in the United States would be subject to the same procedures, and would be required to have a point of contact on domestic soil who could be served with a wiretap order, officials said.
Albert Gidari Jr., who represents technology companies on law enforcement matters, criticized that proposed procedure. He argued that if the United States started imposing fines on foreign Internet firms, it would encourage other countries, some of which may be looking for political dissidents, to penalize American companies if they refused to turn over users’ information.
“We’ll look a lot more like China than America after this,” Mr. Gidari said.
The expanded fines would also apply to phone and network carriers, like Verizon and AT&T, which are separately subject to the 1994 wiretapping capacity law. The FBI hasargued that such companies sometimes roll out system upgrades without making sure that their wiretap capabilities will keep working.
The 1994 law would be expanded to cover peer-to-peer voice-over-Internet protocol, or VoIP — calls between computers that do not connect to the regular phone network. Such services typically do not route data packets through any central hub, making them difficult to intercept.
The F.B.I. has abandoned a component of its original proposal that would have required companies that facilitate the encryption of users’ messages to always have a key to unscramble them if presented with a court order. Critics had charged that such a law would create back doors for hackers. The current proposal would allow services that fully encrypt messages between users to keep operating, officials said.
In November 2010, Mr. Mueller toured Silicon Valley and briefed executives on the proposal as it then existed, urging them not to lobby against it, but the firms have adopted a cautious stance. In February 2011, the F.B.I.’s top lawyer at the time testified about the “going dark” problem at a House hearing, emphasizing that there was no administration proposal yet. Still, several top lawmakers at the hearing expressed skepticism, raising fears about innovation and security.
A version of this article appeared in print on May 8, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. Weighing Wide Overhaul Of Surveillance.
The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued that the bureau’s ability to carry out court-approved eavesdropping on suspects is “going dark” as communications technology evolves, and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders. That proposal, however, bogged down amid concerns by other agencies, like the Commerce Department, about quashing Silicon Valley innovation.
While the F.B.I.’s original proposal would have required Internet communications services to each build in a wiretapping capacity, the revised one, which must now be reviewed by the White House, focuses on fining companies that do not comply with wiretap orders. The difference, officials say, means that start-ups with a small number of users would have fewer worries about wiretapping issues unless the companies became popular enough to come to the Justice Department’s attention.
Still, the plan is likely to set off a debate over the future of the Internet if the White House submits it to Congress, according to lawyers for technology companies and advocates of Internet privacy and freedom.
“I think the F.B.I.’s proposal would render Internet communications less secure and more vulnerable to hackers and identity thieves,” said Gregory T. Nojeim of the Center for Democracy and Technology. “It would also mean that innovators who want to avoid new and expensive mandates will take their innovations abroad and develop them there, where there aren’t the same mandates.”
Andrew Weissmann, the general counsel of the F.B.I., said in a statement that the proposal was aimed only at preserving law enforcement officials’ longstanding ability to investigate suspected criminals, spies and terrorists subject to a court’s permission.
“This doesn’t create any new legal surveillance authority,” he said. “This always requires a court order. None of the ‘going dark’ solutions would do anything except update the law given means of modern communications.”
A central element of the F.B.I.’s 2010 proposal was to expand the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act — a 1994 law that already requires phone and network carriers to build interception capabilities into their systems — so that it would also cover Internet-based services that allow people to converse. But the bureau has now largely moved away from that one-size-fits-all mandate.
Instead, the new proposal focuses on strengthening wiretap orders issued by judges. Currently, such orders instruct recipients to provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies, leaving wiggle room for companies to say they tried but could not make the technology work. Under the new proposal, providers could be ordered to comply, and judges could impose fines if they did not. The shift in thinking toward the judicial fines was first reported by The Washington Post, and additional details were described to The New York Times by several officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Under the proposal, officials said, for a company to be eligible for the strictest deadlines and fines — starting at $25,000 a day — it must first have been put on notice that it needed surveillance capabilities, triggering a 30-day period to consult with the government on any technical problems.
Such notice could be the receipt of its first wiretap order or a warning from the attorney general that it might receive a surveillance request in the future, officials said, arguing that most small start-ups would never receive either.
Michael Sussman, a former Justice Department lawyer who advises communications providers, said that aspect of the plan appeared to be modeled on a British law, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000.
Foreign-based communications services that do business in the United States would be subject to the same procedures, and would be required to have a point of contact on domestic soil who could be served with a wiretap order, officials said.
Albert Gidari Jr., who represents technology companies on law enforcement matters, criticized that proposed procedure. He argued that if the United States started imposing fines on foreign Internet firms, it would encourage other countries, some of which may be looking for political dissidents, to penalize American companies if they refused to turn over users’ information.
“We’ll look a lot more like China than America after this,” Mr. Gidari said.
The expanded fines would also apply to phone and network carriers, like Verizon and AT&T, which are separately subject to the 1994 wiretapping capacity law. The FBI hasargued that such companies sometimes roll out system upgrades without making sure that their wiretap capabilities will keep working.
The 1994 law would be expanded to cover peer-to-peer voice-over-Internet protocol, or VoIP — calls between computers that do not connect to the regular phone network. Such services typically do not route data packets through any central hub, making them difficult to intercept.
The F.B.I. has abandoned a component of its original proposal that would have required companies that facilitate the encryption of users’ messages to always have a key to unscramble them if presented with a court order. Critics had charged that such a law would create back doors for hackers. The current proposal would allow services that fully encrypt messages between users to keep operating, officials said.
In November 2010, Mr. Mueller toured Silicon Valley and briefed executives on the proposal as it then existed, urging them not to lobby against it, but the firms have adopted a cautious stance. In February 2011, the F.B.I.’s top lawyer at the time testified about the “going dark” problem at a House hearing, emphasizing that there was no administration proposal yet. Still, several top lawmakers at the hearing expressed skepticism, raising fears about innovation and security.
A version of this article appeared in print on May 8, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. Weighing Wide Overhaul Of Surveillance.
......
Thursday, March 19, 2009
CIA Chief Meets Home Minister
MARCH 19, 2009, 11:01 A.M. ET
CIA Chief Meets Home Minister
CIA Chief Meets Home Minister
CIA Director Leon Panetta waves as he comes out after a meeting with Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram in New Delhi, India, Thursday, March 19, 2009.
Associated Press
NEW DELHI -- CIA Director Leon Panetta, in his first overseas trip since taking office, met Thursday with India's home minister to discuss intelligence sharing and security in the wake of recent unrest in neighboring Pakistan and last year's deadly Mumbai attacks, officials said.
Mr. Panetta's visit comes two weeks after FBI Director Robert Mueller came to India, where the FBI is believed to be helping investigate the November siege in Mumbai that killed 164 people, including several Americans.
The intelligence chief, who was expected to visit Islamabad after New Delhi, met with Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram, said Pankaj Kumar Mishra, an official with the Home Ministry.
Mr. Panetta is also expected to meet with Indian intelligence officials and the National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan.
The U.S. Embassy released no details about Panetta's trip.
.
The intelligence chief, who was expected to visit Islamabad after New Delhi, met with Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram, said Pankaj Kumar Mishra, an official with the Home Ministry.
Mr. Panetta is also expected to meet with Indian intelligence officials and the National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan.
The U.S. Embassy released no details about Panetta's trip.
.
Note: Bolds added for emphasis:
=========================================
- FBI Director Robert Mueller came to India two weeks ago.
- CIA Director Leon Panetta,... met Thursday with India's home minister to discuss intelligence sharing and security...
- The General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Adolfo Nicolas recent (don't know if he's still there) visit to India.
Can there be a reason why these high ranking officials of their "orders" have all converged recently on India?
Keep your eye on New Delhi!
Arsenio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)