If your fancy ass post doesn't make it to the NOTABLES
try again next time
let it ride
let it roll
no one gets paid to do this
shame on people who complain
I'm wondering if there aren't some new FISA warrants taken out since Trump got in office.
Here's the Rosenstein / Mueller assignment memo
Sauce:https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726381/Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.pdf
(the pdf didn't load) ???
the only link I have for this
Rod Rosenstein's entire resume'
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Rosenstein%20SJQ%20(Public).pdf
and some searches
There seems to be a "Robert J Rosenstein"
which might be his father
but I did a person search once
and found hundreds of versions of this person's name
hiding shell companies all over the U.S.
always using a version of the name
but the phone numbers would match
depending on the year etc
other than that, Rosenstein has many tributes in his career
look at the long list of awards he's gotten
he worked on the ethics guidelines as well
the only case that wasn't in the 4th circuit court
was the Whitewater/McDougal cases
which convicted three including Gov. Tucker
netting a couple of years in prison
if they served at all
note:
The OKC bombing was "rumored" to be connected to the investigation in Arkansas.
Supposedly evidence was stored at the Federal Building.
Why all the lost documents in that case?
Why Vince Foster died?
these were part of that investigation
The documents about Whitewater were found later. So – where was the Justice Dept then?
here's the pdf:
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-PGCo3xtzDGAlu1vt/DICK%20ACT%20ANNOTATED_djvu.txt
the HR 11654 refers to a bill from 1974
Charles Dick died in 1945
The book is a pamphlet it appears.
The numbers are all off.
——————————
first page of the pdf:
Publication No. 4
THE "DICK" BILL
AND
COMMENTS
H. R. 11,654
A Bill to Promote the Efficiency of
the Militia and for Other
Purposes'
TO SUPERSEDE THE ARCHAIC MILITIA LAWS ENACTED IN 1792
Published by
The Executive Committee
of the Interstate National Guard Association
February, 1902
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/us/politics/russia-cyber-hack.html
https://archive.is/J952U
(not in its entirety)
Microsoft said it had seized fake websites, linked to a Russian military intelligence unit, meant to trick people into thinking they were sites for Republican-leaning think tanks that have criticized President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.CreditGulshan Khan/Agence France-Presse —
Getty Images
By David E. Sanger and Sheera Frenkel
BOSTON — The Russian military intelligence unit that sought to influence the 2016 election appears to have a new target: conservative American think tanks that have broken with President Trump and are seeking continued sanctions against Moscow, exposing oligarchs or pressing for human rights.
In a report scheduled for release on Tuesday, Microsoft Corporation said that it detected and
seized websites that were created in recent weeks by hackers linked to the Russian unit formerly known as the G.R.U. The sites appeared meant to trick people into thinking they were clicking through links managed by the Hudson Institute and the International Republican Institute, but were secretly redirected to web pages created by the hackers to steal passwords and other credentials.
Microsoft also found websites imitating the United States Senate, but not specific Senate offices or political campaigns.
The shift to attacking conservative think tanks underscores the Russian intelligence agency’s
goals: to disrupt any institutions challenging Moscow and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia
“We are now seeing another uptick in attacks. What is particular in this instance is the broadening of the type of websites they are going after,” Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, said Monday in an interview.
“These are organizations that are informally tied to Republicans,” he said, “so we see them broadening beyond the sites they have targeted in the past.”
The International Republican Institute’s board of directors includes several Republican leaders who have been highly critical of Mr. Trump’s interactions with Mr. Putin, including a summit meeting last month between the two leaders in Helsinki, Finland.
Among them are Senator John McCain of Arizona; Mitt Romney, a former presidential candidate; and — though he was silent on Mr. Trump’s appearance in Helsinki — Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, who was replaced in the spring as the White House national security adviser.
“This is another demonstration of the fact that the Russians aren’t really pursuing partisan attacks, they are pursuing attacks that they perceive in their own national self-interest,” said Eric Rosenbach, the director of the Defending Digital Democracy project at Harvard University, on Monday. “It’s about disrupting and diminishing any group that challenges how Putin’s Russia is operating at home and around the world.”
The State Department has traditionally helped fund both Republican and Democratic groups that engage in promoting democracy.
“It is clearly designed to sow confusion, conflict and fear among those who criticize Mr. Putin’s authoritarian regime,” Mr. Twining said in a statement.
The goal of the Russian hacking attempt was unclear, and Microsoft was able to catch the spoofed websites as they were set up.
But Mr. Smith said that “these attempts are the newest security threats to groups connected with both American political parties” ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.
“These attacks are seeking to disrupt and divide,” he said. “There is an asymmetric risk here for democratic societies. The kind of attacks we see from authoritarian regimes are seeking to fracture and splinter groups in our society.”
–
Microsoft says it is expanding its effort to help political candidates counter foreign influence. It is starting an initiative it calls “AccountGuard” to bolster protections to candidates and campaign offices at the federal, state and local level, as well as think tanks and political organizations.
—-
A single letter, or even a punctuation mark, was often the only difference between the real and fake websites.
The fake websites were used as the conduit for a number of attacks, including persuading victims to download harmful malware or to reveal passwords and other personal information.
But for the past year, Microsoft has grown increasingly aggressive in countering them.
In 2016, a federal judge in Virginia agreed that the group Microsoft calls “Strontium” and others call “APT 28,” for “advanced persistent threat,” would continue its attacks. The judge appointed a “special master” with the power to authorize Microsoft to seize fake websites as soon as they are registered. As a result, the hackers have lost control of many of the sites only days after creating them.
But it is a constant cat-and-mouse game, as the Russian hackers seek new vectors of attack while Microsoft and others seek to cut them off.
So, it appears that Microsoft was given authority through a court to erase websites that spoof genuine sites.
WTF does Microsoft have to do with registering websites?
Isn't that ICANN ??
So we see now
that Microsoft is a player in the controlling of the internet – who can have websites – what you can name a website.
This entire thing is a smear, looks to me,
comparing Trump to Putin
using websites that are spoof websites
getting people to click on them
to download malware
big smear
Think logically.
The patterns of tiles are not how swimming pools are designed.
Pools will have a band at the top around the edge. Patterns wouldn't show beneath surface.
So……….
These are showers or saunas.
The pattern is meant to be seen and to break up the monotony of the blank wall.
The girls seated, would be in a sauna.
The girls look drugged.
https://www.courthousenews.com/google-faces-location-sharing-class-action-lawsuit/
August 17, 2018
A class action privacy lawsuit against Google was filed in federal court in San Francisco Friday, claiming that the technology giant continued to track the location of cell phone users after they turned off tracking.
The lawsuit alleges that Google tracked users’ geolocation through its Android mobile operating system and related apps even when settings were purportedly supposed to protect user privacy.
“Despite users’ attempts to protect their location privacy, Google collects and stores users’ location data, thereby invading users’ reasonable expectations of privacy, counter to Google’s own representations about how users can configure Google’s products to prevent such egregious privacy violations,” the complaint states.
The lawsuit comes after an Associated Press investigative story published Monday explained that even when location tracking is turned off, it may still be used by some Google apps.
Plaintiff Napoleon Patacsil states in the complaint that Google apps on his iPhone continued to track his location after he turned the apps’ Location History storage option off. Patacsil said that Google continued to track him even after its website stated that turning off location tracking in an account turns off “all devices associated with that Google Account.”
FILE – This Wednesday, April 26, 2017 file photo shows a Google icon on a mobile phone, in Philadelphia.(AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)
“Google’s representation was false. As recently publicly revealed, turning off “Location History” only stopped Google from creating a location timeline that the user could view,” the complaint states. “Google, however, continues to track the phone owners and keep a record of their locations.”
The lawsuit claims that Google violated federal law by tracking individual geolocations without permission, referring to a Federal Trade Commission law that calls it a “deceptive trade practice.”
Additionally, Patascil claims that the practice violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act and California’s constitutional right to privacy.
In addition to damages, Patascil seeks a court order demanding that Google destroy all data captured from its geolocation tracking technology of the plaintiff and class members.
Patascil is represented by Michael Sobol and Nicholas Diamand of Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein and Hank Bates of Carney Bates and Pulliam. A call to his attorneys and to Google for comment were made after business hours and not immediately returned Friday evening.
In a quick read, nowhere do I see a reference to time limits. At least not in the Exec Order themselves. The law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3341
The term “current investigation file” means, with respect to a security clearance, a file on an investigation or adjudication that has been conducted during—
(A) the 5-year period beginning on the date the security clearance was granted, in the case of a Top Secret Clearance, or the date access was granted to a highly sensitive program;
(B) the 10-year period beginning on the date the security clearance was granted in the case of a Secret Clearance; and
(C) the 15-year period beginning on the date the security clearance was granted in the case of a Confidential Clearance.
(6) The term “personnel security investigation” means any investigation required for the purpose of determining the eligibility of any military, civilian, or government contractor personnel to access classified information
There is a reference to the 1995 Clinton Executive Order
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12968
which was an expansion of Eisenhower's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10450
Effective May 27, 1953, it revoked President Truman's Executive Order 9835 of 1947, and dismantled its Loyalty Review Board program. Instead it charged the heads of federal agencies and the Office of Personnel Management, supported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), with investigating federal employees to determine whether they posed security risks. It expanded the definitions and conditions used to make such determinations
=
which replaced Truman's Executive Order
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9835
sometimes known as the "Loyalty Order", on March 21, 1947.[1] The order established the first general loyalty program in the United States, designed to root out communist influence in the U.S. federal government. Truman aimed to rally public opinion behind his Cold War policies with investigations conducted under its authority. He also hoped to quiet right-wing critics who accused Democrats of being soft on communism. At the same time, he advised the Loyalty Review Board to limit the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to avoid a witch hunt.[2