Slashdot Mirror
FBI Launches Internal Investigation Into Its Own Twitter Account (thinkprogress.org)
An anonymous reader shares a report on ThinkProgress: The FBI has launched an internal investigation into one of its own Twitter accounts. The account at issue, @FBIRecordsVault, had been dormant for more than a year. Then on October 30 at 4 a.m., the account released a flood of documents, including one describing Donald Trump's father Fred Trump as a "philanthropist." But it wasn't until two days later, when the account tweeted documents regarding President Clinton's controversial pardon of Marc Rich that the account began to attract significant attention. The account has not been active since that tweet. ThinkProgress has learned that the FBI's Inspection Division will undertake an investigation of the account. Candice Will, Assistant Director for the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, said she was referring the matter to the FBI's Inspection Division for an "investigation." Upon completion of the investigation, the Office of Professional Responsibility will be referred back to the Office of Professional Responsibility for "adjudication."
Sure...I trust the FBI to tell the truth about their own wrongdoings. (Oh wait...maybe not.)
Is that what you call it, "controversial"? I'd sure hope that pardoning a convicted criminal at the last possible moment in exchange for a couple of million in "donations" is more than just "controversial". What does Bubba need to do in order for people to finally admit he has no moral compass? Publicly behead someone?
Perhaps its time to investigate:
1. Electronic voting, all those open Wifi connections, and crap Windows 95 based terminals with exposed USB ports. Do you really want Putin to choose the next president?
2. Encryption, NSA allowed zero day exploits to go unpatched, and there has been an undermining of encryption. This has made USA less secure and it needs to be fixed. Quit talking shit about Syrian terrorists blowing up babies and start considering all those REAL political, business and industrial secrets that have been exposed to nasty foreign powers and their puppet agents.
3. Baltic states in particular have online voting and a large Russian population among which agents could be hidden. That's very very foolish. They need to look at the soldiers Russian planted in Ukraine to shit stir and realize their online voting is a liability, not an embrace of modern technology. It would be trivial to rig an election in Latvia the way its rigged in Russia.
I swear there's been a secret coup and The Onion has taken over the world.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Yes, the computer script controlling the account is clearly partisan.
I thought they already explained this: the Twitter account automatically tweets when a certain number of FOIA requests have been reached for a set of documents. I'm guessing that a bunch of FOIA requests from early in the election season finally went through, so you're getting tweets just now that are all related to Clinton. Nothing "partisan" or "evil" about it: just a script reading a bunch of finished FOIA requests that were probably started a year ago during the leadup to the Democratic primaries.
Bumbling, uncooridnated, impulsive, and just plain stupid. All the qualities of Fife but without the charm.
#jamescomey: I want to be the most powerful person in DC to wear a dress.
Sorry, man. Hoover's been gone since '72.
FBI launches investigation into FBI investigation-launches. Investigators are investigating where to investigate investigators for the investigation. They're thinking Buffalo.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Looks like the FBI has disclosed that not only was Clinton's email server almost certainly hacked, but the hacking got so blatant that even Clinton's own part-time staff who did the incompetent setup of a Microsoft Exchange server were able to figure out that something was going on and shut it down temporarily while she was still using it.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/g...
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
I thought they already explained this: the Twitter account automatically tweets when a certain number of FOIA requests have been reached for a set of documents. I'm guessing that a bunch of FOIA requests from early in the election season finally went through, so you're getting tweets just now that are all related to Clinton.
Who is the "they" that explained it this way? It's trivially easy to disprove. Just look at the Fred Trump document. it appears to be a 1991 release of data in response to a 1966 FOIA request, containing information covering the years 1962-1988. The only thing new is "adding" the document to this WWW-based "vault." I'm sure similar metadata could be retrieved form the Clinton documents. This is just a blatant Hatch Act violation.
Are we really at the point where trying to expose criminals is itself a crime? What the fuck is going on?
well the fact that the FBI didnt recommend charges to begin with show a clear partisain BS slant at the DOJ
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
"The department also has a policy of not taking unnecessary action close in time to Election Day that might influence an electionâ(TM)s outcome. These rules have been followed during Republican and Democratic administrations."
So I guess it was "necessary" for the FBI to leak, four days before the election that George (H. W.) Bush was himself in-the-know on Iran-Contra?
Clinton's campaign made great hay with this particular October Surprise. That was the election where Clinton displaced Bush, denying him a second term and giving us the FIRST Clinton Presidency.
Ross Perot pulled down more than three times the difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton was 7% short of a popular-vote majority.
Any bets on whether at least a third of Perot's votes, or at least enough of those (plus conservative voters who just didn't vote for president) to flip a few states and their electoral votes, were people who would have voted for Bush but were disgusted by this and voting for Perot as a protest?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
WaPo is owned by Bezos, you won't find anything whatsoever that could jeopardize HRC's presidential run there.
But on the substance of your accusation, Barack Obama is campaigning for Hillary on taxpayer dime. Is that not a violation of the Hatch Act? If not, explain.
Who the f--- asked for FOIA documents on whether Trump's dad was a "philanthropist"? I'm sorry, but this explanation makes virtually no sense - and presumably doesn't to do the FBI either otherwise they wouldn't be investigating it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
And then noticed what was happening, so stopped putting them on the web archive and said nothing hoping that it goes away.
Kinda does explain the insta-stop
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
> you should look into John Podesta's BFF — "investigating" Hillary Clinton?
Yeah, the guy that Trey Gowdy (who spent the last year presiding over the 9th hyperbolic benghazi 'investigation') just said "is not a decision maker, he is a messenger." Conspiracy!
> who tipped her campaign before,
Who 'tipped' her campaign to a publicly announced subcommittee hearing. Conspiracy!
Jesus Hussein Christ! You gullible idiots keep finding conspiracy theory after conspiracy based on nothing more than your ignorance of the full story. How many times do you have to be utterly wrong before you start looking in the mirror and asking "what the fuck is wrong with me?"
First clue should have been that your sources are two of the most notorious conspiracy mills in operation: zerohedge and thegatewaypundid (aka the stupidest man on the internet).
You can't submit a FOIA request in advance of the records being created, and a 1966 FOIA request can't be responsible for records spanning 1962-1988.
I'm certain there's a typo in there, just not sure which date you "fat-fingered".
Ken
Wait, when you say "deleted" what you really mean is "stored on mis-filed backup tapes" - right?
And when you say "not made public" you mean because they weren't asked to be released to the public, right? They were handed over to the requesting legal bodies, no crimes were found, and the issue dropped...
Wikipedia is such a lousy source, why not turn to CNN?
BTW, The "Bush Secret Server" was a public email server, did not carry classified information, and was used in an effort to COMPLY with federal regulations (The Hatch Act), not to subvert the FOIA act...
Ken
Do we know that? Colin Powell said he deleted all of his thousands of emails, with none recoverable. How do we know what's on something that no longer exists?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
No, at the time (2003) the Bush administration claimed they were 'deleted' and didn't have any backups, it took until 2009 and the Obama white house administration to 'find' them:
"Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails."
"researchers found a suspicious pattern in the White House email system blackouts, including periods when there were no emails available from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney."
"In 2003, a whistleblower told the National Security Archive [a private watchdog group] that the George W. Bush White House was no longer saving its emails. The Archive...refiled their original lawsuit. The plaintiffs soon discovered that Bush aides had simply shut down the Clinton automatic email archive, and they identified the start date of the lost emails as January 1, 2003."
"In court in May 2008, administration lawyers contended that the White House had lost three months’ worth of email backups from the initial days of the Iraq War. Bush aides thus evaded a court-ordered deadline to describe the contents of digital backup believed to contain emails deleted in 2003 between March—when the U.S. invaded Iraq—and September....Eventually, the Bush White House admitted it had lost 22 million emails, not 5 million. Then, in December 2009—well into Barack Obama’s administration—the White House said it found 22 million emails, dated between 2003 and 2005, that it claimed had been mislabeled."
Same as for Clinton except for the Bush administration there was:
"clearer evidence here of deliberate stonewalling and lawbreaking than anything that even the fever swamps suggest about Hillary Clinton's emails"
"So why is it that Clinton's emails have gotten coverage of such titanic proportions? Partly because Republicans have pushed the story hard. Partly because the rolling disclosure of Clinton's emails have rekindled interest on a regular basis. And partly because it fits into the well-known narrative of Hillary Clinton as evasive and duplicitous. In the LA Times today, Mark Barabak describes this syndrome perfectly: In the end, there's very little to gripe about in either of these recent Clinton stories. She made a dumb mistake using a private server and a single email account while she was Secretary of State, but in the end there's little evidence of any actual wrongdoing. Likewise, she was dumb to withhold news of her pneumonia. But obviously there's no wrongdoing here at all, just a misplaced sense of privacy that simply doesn't exist for presidential candidates"
http://www.motherjones.com/kev...