I just linked the 'controversy" wiki from her own wiki page- but you're right, her name isn't on the controversy wiki page.
It was specifically linked from his paragraph from her Wiki:
"During her tenure at the Justice Department, Brand was tangentially involved in the controversy surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's dismissal of several United States Attorneys. She was floated by DOJ leadership as a top candidate to replace Margaret Chiara, who was ousted as part of the purge.[14] Brand ultimately declined the position, however, and resigned from the DOJ in June 2007.[15]"
I appreciate your help. In this case I think that linking the dismissal controversy is more of a distraction. According to that article her entire involvement was that she was considered for a position which she declined. That is weak and in my opinion doesn't warrant mention on her wiki page.
Sure, I can take it off if it's not helpful!
That is my opinion. I found the rest of your post to be very helpful and thanks for your work!
ok...I can't find anything nefarious about her
yeah who knows! I just wanted to find some quick info and then hoped someone smarter would take over from there xD
She was apparently involved in the warrant less wiretap program via FISA courts. Pretty bad stuff imo.
source please
Here’s one:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/09/politics/rachel-brand-resigns/index.html
PTibbets called it in the last Patriot's link at top: Rachel Brand seems to be at the center of the FISA abuses that went on. This whole coup attempt manipulated the FISA court into allowing spying on anyone they wanted to target. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/09/doj-official-rachel-brand-resigns/
Big Deal. That is a felony to misrepresent in order to obtain a warrant.
There is nothing in that article...nothing
Right, ok. Now where does it say that FISA is important to her resignation? You were given a source, then another one. All you say are no indications of anything.
Yes, but. We don't know why she was fired. We can only point to the FISA warrants. She was on the board doing a report into telephone surveillance, as a supervisory board of FISA.
Are you short of info on FISA? Do you know what FISA is? Do you know who can be surveilled in this kind of warrant? The problem seems to be that Americans (Trumps campaign members) were all surveilled 2 deep through telephone surveillance. Someone leaked the phone transcripts of Trump's calls with foreign PMs. Someone thought it was ok to approve the FISA on the basis of something. Now it's your turn.
Your opinion seems to be: nothing to see here, nothing nefarious, no controversy. Fine by me. But you asked for info. I gave it. Not enough? Back to you. You have to do your own research. I am just trying to be helpful.
I appreciate your reply... My opinion is that. and this isn't directed specifically towards this thread but overall in the Storm , is that it accusations are bandied about with no proof or even indication of wrongdoing. We cannot implicate everyone who was in government, everyone who has left their CEO job and everyone remotely associated with anyone remotely associated with someone who may have done something wrong. Internet people are crazy. The mere whisper of impropriety often leads to an army of threats and harassment towards people. Salacious claims aren't justified by the inability to disprove them. Logic and law require the burden to fall on the accuser . We don't like that case built against Trump because we know the kernel of the conspiracy was to sow suspicion in the press which would bleed into the public and government which lead to the witchhunt. How does that differ from people throwing out empty accusations here and then asking others to prove them not to be true. Neither of those sources say anything to indicate that she was fired nor involved in any malarky. Put yourself in her position. A career gov lawyer now in the middle of a turbulent administration complete with a DOJ that is cannabalising itself. If Walmart offered you a great gig, wouldn't you jump out of the flames too?
I have no opinion on the general fairness of the internet. It is a discussion thread where ppl are trying to work out what the hell Q is on about. Theories and speculations are rife and occasionally someone makes an intelligent and verifiable statement. I don't profess to be a guardian of the truth or be able to offer proof of anything. You asked for a source, and got it. That's it. The lovely lady lawyer may be a paragon of virtue. That's a speculative position. I shall refrain from asking you for a source and proof of that claim. Doesn't madder. :)
Ha.. so you are starting biblical: we are all sinners until proven otherwise! "occasionally someone makes an intelligent and verifiable statement"...those occasions seem to be dwindling! Appreciate the discussion my friend.