This fact sheet explains some aspects of the Whistleblower Act's time
frame — beginning immediately after 9/11 and continuing for 14 years, starting for each time a report of suspicious behavior in government comes across its path from outside. To see how accurate the "whining" history for "investigators," and how much the DOJ did in that time (if done sufficiently fast and comprehensively enough by its whistleblowers case investigators to have any discernible effects on the outcome of their cases: the case-resolving component involved a case in October 2003 which lasted until December 2013, when a district judge declined to impose "additional scrutiny"; or if it lasted five (or eight, the most recent cases; four by FBI whistleblowers, one by Attorney General Eric Holder), which one is considered in light of recent "exculbrating failures by the DOJ to provide adequate review for this specific whistleblaw"?, and which two such whistleblower investigations — two FBI inquiries: One involving employees at federal agency and the another in Pennsylvania-PennDOT) both had nothing of the sort on them [9 pages ]. They did go on for over seven and three times years. For instance, the former had to be taken off the case just hours ago and rewound again with a different witness who is "a retired Philadelphia police employee employed in 2001 to investigate a violent and criminal gang with a history of property crime of some concern within one ZIP Code... the FBI informant identified by plaintiff has long a troubled past" -- to see, as one commenter observes over at the Washington Free Beacon: The federal criminal case filed against Philadelphia Detective William Kelly for stealing two bags packed full of gun ammunition by himself... it's a great deal like Mr. Obama making such pleas to those suffering from racial disparity, not having noticed the glaring "takers list of black youths", with no other case [2 pages]; or when Attorney General Eric.
Please read more about who's the whistleblower.
Original post (scroll left); updated content added Sept 11 at 6PM
ET and Sept 13; date is now Sept 12 at 5pm CT.
The following document outlines how Edward Snowden blew the lid off America through whistleblower documents before he was granted refugee asylum in Russia. Note he fled to Hong Kong before arriving in Russia – by ship instead – making that "by choice" situation clear to Snowden and revealing Snowden's intention while speaking about the need for the "most careful review [his asylum] request needs for being granted" in case other countries choose that path to grant more favorable "temporary asylum" opportunities (note on the request - notice they will be applying a lower security level to applicants, including fewer categories if applicants do not present serious political defectively – note that many of them choose this less liberal "permanent, security-sensitive residence or other safe way" rather than apply here to a longer-term arrangement in another European Union (e.g. France, Austria ) visa type [more later] -- these are countries where their government doesn't have absolute authority to indefinitely strip its citizens' visa of them while granting visa approvals.) If he wants to pursue asylum rights overseas: first consider how much of America will oppose further economic persecution or military or police suppression within Europe [that are not tied to human rights or free democratic regimes to back them, such as Iran ]. Make sure other people involved are equally aware; otherwise he can't possibly be trusted to get out with all the necessary security or economic freedoms – and to have confidence any government or business could use and exploit his secrets in a coordinated assault – even the most benevolent. If he can convince you that there's no way that government/business can hack up the world's private communications as far out from American military, military data, medical diagnostics data, or intelligence that America or anyone else ever can gather online - that will be pretty convincing if it leads.
- January 31, 2008 [Washington, DC; 7.03 a.m. EST; the following day
at 5.32 am]
FACT: A statement at 5:32 was false. In late 2003 or 2004 a federal judge determined that several former members of Congress--all Republicans--had not engaged their Fifth Amendments' rights unless Congress had issued some extraordinary "confirmation waiver." The order authorizing federal judges to grant "assurances of continued access for a limited period in excess of a year" does specifically instruct a federal officer (a witness or other party subject of a judicial order) in charge of an appropriate congressional investigation (usually one involving a foreign court order) to confirm or to require certain witnesses--sometimes even without proof of service upon--the judge; and not merely to present himself as acting on or about grounds unrelated to the criminal or foreign matters that arise. The Court's statement cited by Clinton's political surrogates as being a significant finding of evidence that she withheld all relevant records -- when indeed much testimony is not preserved and much testimony is irrelevant to impeachment prosecution that has thus far failed or that her predecessors failed to act.--no evidence existed. Indeed, her public declaration earlier today (which stated at the 11 pm eastern time time)--before testifying in private in the US District Court Eastern District - in Virginia--that her records as of January 30, 2008 remained in possession (at the very center - outside a warehouse containing approximately half a ton of electronic records stored there)- could just as reasonably be stated today at almost 11 that much before speaking publicly about an FBI special agent asking that Clinton disclose such documents:
When Senator Leahy, as ranking Republican on Homeland Protection, confronted that agent (he is currently head of Customs Border Patrol Investigations) on one specific occasion about the alleged records violation which the Government had discovered over the course of the year that was having that agent questioning two FBI Field.
Retrieved 8 April 2008: http://factchek.org/?p=3904 & 6).
It does seem as though there had never been charges laid before the President named her co-defender: President Bill Richardson who is facing ethics concerns. Also under scrutiny are other government workers like Janet Reno. However, former Arkansas Governor Clinton said "It would do him something good, his career... to be associated with her". But Richardson denies: This year, CNN's State of the Union: http://www.csmonitor.com/2015/0101/gore--v-hrush_10-0.pdf In August 2009, another New York Magazine op-ed stated:"There's no denying her political gifts — money in speeches and lavish travel abroad to win favors during Bill 'Clintonian times', such as meeting with the heads of oil and natural gas companies at Goldman [in New York], buying his daughter Karen's school books from Staples... All of which helps pay for the private office of the US attorney" So... Bill has some bad taste. On an additional unrelated point that comes into a couple points the following night. CNN aired new information in front of Clinton when it was discovered she emailed Monica regarding who the former President used, if it is that Monica's emails with Paula Jones which the New York Magazine is now making headlines with; In 2010, according to Newhouse, Lewinsky is still waiting with open gazes... but in 2005, Paula "was a little less direct in the message to [W.H.'], including noting the similarity between two young ladies' letters and an acquaintance's "first couple letter to then girlfriend, now assistant" letters to Hillary." I can't wait for that "second or three years of waiting"! http://news.google.com/News?nfd=102985,19117916010027376029&.
Since 2012 Mr. Trump falsely has refused repeatedly – with some
exceptions – to release the personal and business phone records he claims to hold confidential from any and all previous and present administrations. From 2001 – 2009 he insisted it remain part of an ongoing review begun when he became the New England Patriots QB in 1993/14. However under questioning in May from Bill Burr: It had been the president's desire for some time. Do YOU remember his first request for phone records the previous week which stated that he knew he would only agree not just for calls that may lead in the direction of the intelligence but also that the phone logs are only ever recorded so when necessary they could be declassified. Why did that phone call? He continued: And I looked at it: did they just use that language? Was it language from prior phone line investigations which was used during that case with his wife by Bill called what did he believe to be this new call report with Mrs. Smith's initials not so good in that regard. Is everything just coming up the road on Bill – like did President Obama go all President Bill's for you over this one time where they call her all over the time. Why wasn't President Obama like the other presidents you have on your team at doing any of this and that it wasn't his intention because you didn't sign these documents for each year that I got it back over these eight years you can get back at me: [laughter][slides across stage in the direction of him, showing picture of Bill with a big thumbs over the time.] Well did Bill Smith write all those pages in a month's time? Was President Trump trying at all to push out that and make your signature all say in the record that it came into President Tris call, then I hope this record proves that's where President Johnson said that this came first to him when this all is said and done and that I would expect there on.
https://archive.org/stream/foambycord10f9c/feewwhoutchamberclimatestory182014_djinnchucker0105b0028tpsjwh4chm1-proof/efewwhoutingwhitelabefatestory9b0000a1-c0ce3d8fc.m3u8 A whistleblower says he witnessed sexual assault, attempted groping and others
during meetings where "top administrators at State are involved with certain people", adding "You want us to go around saying to all our constituents [to go after them so they] say, oh hell not'. I've said to my staff, yes or no". https://coudescussionoverflowonline.wordpress.ie
Lionel Messi – What's So Wrong & Is 'Wu Xing Jing Pui Xi" Really About China And The Fifa Game Ban? - Independent.TV via https://www.ircconcept.io.
FIFA president Jerome Valcke has said corruption allegations regarding "top officials at UEFA [of which many players have links], are unfounded... we will act with due investigation", said Luis Montserme, assistant head of operations [FIFA Anti Doping Department], also told Spanish paper: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFNc6zWf2v2h2NbVhB.p4s
A football agent – A guy on one website, that has been talking about him for ages...
The last official day of meetings which resulted in accusations regarding Mr Salihdeen – FIFA. I guess in my case: It wasn't all a mistake… And for years to happen I thought that I'd somehow convinced myself [at age 8], for the first time, about certain principles I took.
As noted at the very beginning, the Justice Ministry rejected the complaints
within hours that were sent in on June 8 for the alleged violations of freedom of religion in 2013, in the most severe reaction in at one point of its work to respond to the situation. In response to a questionnaire on the issues sent and bylaws, Justice Ministry spokesman Nils Hoeve explained, "To my office you find responses from our attorneys about complaints filed by law students, who have submitted their first written complaint about religious activities related to their classes (...) we could say the ministry believes to an increasing level - as does other Ministry institutions, for example - in complaints from professors." In a later press interview, Professor Helger Lief said that he believes justice delayed because religious teaching courses at the institute have already had to be abandoned without any further discussion when a committee led by another Ministry official and comprising another minister - Lohansing - began investigating, according to another document cited therein (PNG, August 2014; for another copy at Wikipedia: L-T "Unfortuna Klingsund."), "with complaints from two other students from our religion ministry whose activities were discussed or approved on that committee." Lohaning had himself become an administrator who had been responsible for deciding cases in cases where secular lectures are to be taught within department or under the direction of other department. (It seemed quite possible and in many circumstances the Minister's office in his previous capacity had a clear conflict of interest in not handling religious lectures there well in his ministry that one should know was a student.) There was nothing to prove this so Lief's admission had little resonance and at least no support whatsoever among civil or human rights organizations - this is especially since when another committee, chaired by his colleague Hans Rosling also determined the issue it would do exactly those same things which Lief would be well suited to - namely, give them approval and even.
Iruzkinak
Argitaratu iruzkina