Portland mayor admonishes police chief after public clash over tear gas

Nick Budnick Wednesday,

September 16, 2020

Police said mayor's ban on CS gas could lead to more serious injuries; Wheeler calls statement 'serious breach of protocol.'

Mayor Ted Wheeler has chided Portland Police Chief Chuck Lovell and his command staff following a rare public disagreement.

Wheeler also has demanded a "communications plan" from the bureau as well as a plan to manage an upcoming Saturday, Sept. 26, demonstration planned by right-wing activists.

The backlash follows the events of Sept. 10. That morning, after months of scrutiny over the use of CS gas — or tear gas — by police, Wheeler announced that he was ordering the Portland Police Bureau to no longer use it for crowd control.

Six hours later, the bureau issued a press release of its own, saying it "needs" CS gas to avoid more serious injuries, and also saying the gas isn't used for crowd control at all; rather it "is being used to disperse crowds only when there is a life safety event."

In an email to Lovell and his assistant chiefs the next day, the mayor wrote that "while I do not often issue directives to the Portland Police Bureau, when I do I expect them to be followed. Civilian oversight of the Police Bureau is set in the Portland City Charter, and every sworn officer takes an oath to abide by that charter. Professionalism and public service demand nothing less."

The Sept. 11 email, released in response to a Tribune request, refers to an earlier conversation between Lovell and Wheeler. Actually there were two that day, according to a knowledgeable source.

Asked for comment on the aftermath of the public clash, a spokesman for the bureau denied any insubordination, saying Lovell has made clear "the mayor is the police commissioner and the Police Bureau will be responsive to and follow the mayor's direction."

Wheeler, through his staff, issued a statement: "PPB's decision to put out a press release questioning my direction was a serious breach of protocol and an inappropriate use of City communications resources. I made it clear, in no uncertain terms, to the Chief that this cannot happen again."

Wheeler added that "The Chief took responsibility for that decision. He affirmed that there was never any intention of disobeying the directive."

Teargas tensions

Wheeler himself was teargassed in July at a Black Lives Matter protest downtown. His ban on CS gas followed an earlier effort in June ordering the bureau to use it only when necessary.

Police and their supporters have maintained that sometimes tear gas is necessary, citing attacks on police from behind protester lines and efforts to protect the perpetrators by activists who seek to "de-arrest" people detained by police.

https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/480993-388103-portland-mayor-admonishes-police-chief-after-public-clash-over-tear-gas?wallit_nosession=1

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1306514283623190528?s=20

Recently Released FISA Court Response to DOJ Reveals Direction of Durham Probe – DOJ Requested FISC Approvals

Posted by sundance

Declas Anons

A very interesting release by ODNI John Ratcliffe [LINK] highlights a June 25, 2020 response from the FISA court to the DOJ. There are five issues queried by the DOJ seeking guidance from the FISC. Each issue points to a specific path being taken by the DOJ in general… and the John Durham probe specifically.

Today, the ODNI, in consultation with the Department of Justice, releases a June 25, 2020, opinion by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) evaluating and approving limited circumstances under which the Government may temporarily retain, use, or disclose information that was unlawfully acquired pursuant to a FISC order. (more)

Important note: We are looking at this in hindsight. The response from the FISC was dated June 25, 2020, so the request for opinion from the court was before June 25th.

The court opinion tells us for the first time, the DOJ is admitting/stating that ALL FOUR of the Carter Page FISA applications were corrupt upon origination. This is a big deal. In previous filing with the court (January 2020) DOJ only refuted the predication for the second and third renewal.

Within the FISC reply we see the DOJ stating all four submissions contained material omissions and violations of “the duty of candor” (ie. lying) by the FBI investigative unit and the DOJ team that assembled the application(s).

As we look closely at the response we see some very specific language that tells a story.

Apparently the DOJ asked the FISA court for guidance on five very specific issues centering around the Carter Page FISA application. The DOJ is asking for legal guidance to assist them in disclosing information in the FISA file & evidence attached to the FISA file.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/09/16/recently-released-fisa-court-response-to-doj-reveals-direction-of-durham-probe-doj-requested-fisc-approvals/#more-199812

>>10680207

2nd part of Sundance article, very interesting

DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to FOIA demands. FISC gives legal opinion.

DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to ongoing and anticipated civil litigation. The FISC gives legal opinion and expands to criminal litigation.

DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to internal investigative units from the FBI inspectors division (INSD). FISC gives opinion and advice.

DOJ requests guidance for distribution of non-minimized information, and/or, minimized information as part of the ongoing Office of Inspector General oversight. FISC gives opinion and guidance.

DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to John Durham probe, both for criminal prosecution and possible evidence gathering attached to other ongoing investigative needs. FISC gives opinion and guidance.

The opinion from the FISC is only 20 pages long [direct pdf here], and if you skip the citations it’s a pretty straight forward answer from Judge Boasberg to review. I would strongly urge everyone to take a few minutes and read it… carefully…. to see what John Durham was asking.

Pages #6 and #7 talk specifically about the different requirements for retention and distribution and outlines a cautious approach toward distribution. One of the disconcerting parts of this segment seems to be the FISA court subtly guiding the DOJ away from using non-minimized raw FISA material in prosecution of intentional malfeasance. On this issue the court says allowing a target to escape prosecution is part of the penalty upon the DOJ for wrongful assembly.

The court does not consider the DOJ is targeting the “assemblers” for their criminal conduct. Rather the response is general toward criminals who were targets of a FISA application assembled with corrupt intent. A little weird.

Pages #11 and #12 hit the topic of FOIA production. The court says “some” FOIA requests might warrant document distribution, but not all. However, on the topic of Carter Page getting his FOIA fulfilled, the court supports expansive distribution to Mr. Page.

I find the arguments and issues in/around page #14 to be especially noteworthy. In this segment the court is responding to the underlying raw evidence that would normally be used to assemble a “woods file”. The court notes the FBI Sentinel system would contain the minimized outcomes (redacted evidence) and this points to a bigger issue. READ:

Note the woods file would be what is in the Sentinel system. The government (Durham Probe) needs “access to the case file” beyond what is in the Sentinel system. Durham wants to see the raw data, the underlying raw intelligence.

Why?

It looks like Durham investigators were already on the trail of the special counsel creating a Woods file…. and/or wants to see if the Steele Dossier is the original substantive documentation that underpins the Woods file. Notice how INSD previously received “hard copies” of documentation that is presumed to be the Woods file.

REPORT THIS AD

Regardless of motive or investigative suspicion, someone wants to compare the raw intel to the intel that made it into the FBI/DOJ Sentinel system.

In response to this inquiry Judge Boasberg notes FBI investigators would have access to the minimized information within the Sentinel system; however, insofar as there was additional inquiry into the raw and non-minimized intelligence, a review and distribution would be permissible so long as there was a strong filter team in place to ensure statutes surrounding FISA security were not violated.

Overall, Boasberg gives permission and approval for all six aspects requested. However, he does so with several legal qualifiers and distinctions which the DOJ must observe.

Here’s the full reply and opinion. Strongly suggest the time to review:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/09/16/recently-released-fisa-court-response-to-doj-reveals-direction-of-durham-probe-doj-requested-fisc-approvals/#more-199812

>>10680242

Answer to Q, what system would 302 be in, 3rd part of Sundance article

Note the woods file would be what is in the Sentinel system. The government (Durham Probe) needs “access to the case file” beyond what is in the Sentinel system. Durham wants to see the raw data, the underlying raw intelligence.

Why?

It looks like Durham investigators were already on the trail of the special counsel creating a Woods file…. and/or wants to see if the Steele Dossier is the original substantive documentation that underpins the Woods file. Notice how INSD previously received “hard copies” of documentation that is presumed to be the Woods file.

Regardless of motive or investigative suspicion, someone wants to compare the raw intel to the intel that made it into the FBI/DOJ Sentinel system.

In response to this inquiry Judge Boasberg notes FBI investigators would have access to the minimized information within the Sentinel system; however, insofar as there was additional inquiry into the raw and non-minimized intelligence, a review and distribution would be permissible so long as there was a strong filter team in place to ensure statutes surrounding FISA security were not violated.

Overall, Boasberg gives permission and approval for all six aspects requested. However, he does so with several legal qualifiers and distinctions which the DOJ must observe.

Here’s the full reply and opinion. Strongly suggest the time to review:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/09/16/recently-released-fisa-court-response-to-doj-reveals-direction-of-durham-probe-doj-requested-fisc-approvals/#more-199812

Leaked 2016 Call Reveals Joe Biden Risked National Security To Sabotage Trump

Joe Biden exercised incredibly poor judgement, placing a highly classified counterintelligence operation at risk, and undermined the incoming administration.

Alex Plitsas

A recently leaked phone call between then-Vice President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko directly after the 2016 presidential election shows that Biden sought to sabotage the incoming Trump administration before Donald Trump even took office, and much worse.

During the course of the call, Biden badmouthed the incoming administration, saying, “The truth of the matter is that the incoming administration doesn’t know a great deal about [Ukraine]” and that they were unprepared for the transition. This in itself is inappropriate, but it was meant to set the stage for Biden’s next statement and future plans.

Biden then told Poroshenko, “I don’t plan on going away. As a private citizen, I plan on staying deeply engaged in the endeavor that you have begun and we have begun.” In a matter of moments, Biden undermined the incoming administration, branded them as not knowing anything about Ukraine, and attempted to set up a foreign policy backchannel for himself after he left office as a private citizen, which could violate the Logan Act.

The Logan Act bars private citizens from engaging in U.S. foreign policy, although its constitutionality remains questionable and no person has ever been convicted of violating it since it was signed into law in 1799. Ironically, this is the same act that, at Joe Biden’s suggestion, the FBI accused National Security Advisor Michael Flynn of violating as a result of a discussion Flynn had with the Russian ambassador to the United States around nearly the same time as Biden’s call with Poroshenko.

To fortify his position and to make Poroshenko more confident that he should continue to deal with Biden once he left office, in the call Biden also intimated that there is a problem with the incoming administration: “The reason I bother to tell you that is I have been somewhat limited on what I am able to tell their team about Ukraine.”

While Biden blamed this on a late start to the transition process, we now know he said this at the same time the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies were conducting a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” of which Ukraine was a part.

Since it was leaked by a Ukrainian member of Parliament, the phone call was obviously recorded by the Ukrainians, and almost certainly by Russian intelligence services. Biden would have been aware of this from his time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as vice president.

So Biden, the sitting vice president of the United States, told a foreign leader whose country was part of a highly classified FBI counterintelligence investigation that there were things he couldn’t share about his country with the incoming administration and that they weren’t cleared. We now know from subsequent investigations that the Trump administration did not in fact collude with Russia, but at the time, Biden didn’t and he was privy to the fact that the FBI had opened the investigation.

If Russian intelligence had actually penetrated the incoming Trump administration, Biden’s comments would have almost certainly tipped them off that something was amiss, placing our national security in grave danger.

Additionally, it is mind-boggling that the vice president felt comfortable telling a foreign leader that there were things he was unable to tell the incoming administration at the same time the Department of Justice and the FBI failed to notify President-elect Trump of potential counterintelligence risks (that ended up not being true) posed by members of his campaign team who might join his administration in official capacities.

In the end, it is clear that Biden exercised incredibly poor judgment, placing a highly classified counterintelligence operation at risk; undermined the incoming administration; and attempted to set up a foreign policy backchannel for himself so he could remain involved in U.S-Ukrainian policy even though he was not sanctioned to do so by law.

All of this took place while his son, Hunter Biden, was on the payroll of a Ukrainian energy firm for which he admitted he had no related experience.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/17/leaked-2016-call-reveals-joe-biden-risked-national-security-to-sabotage-trump/#.X2Ne3MfySXc.twitter

See new Tweets

Conversation

Fukushima ExposedFlag of Canada

@fukushimaexpos2

Here is the fire drone video that Twitter, Google, and YouTube didn't want us to see

Watch the video anons

https://twitter.com/fukushimaexpos2/status/1304548466350149632?s=20