Podcasts about fbi director mueller

On Friday, June 19, 2020, the Department of Justice released unredacted portions of the Mueller Report relating to Roger Stone. In the days ahead, I'm planning to re-release sections of the Mueller Report with the newly available information. This section's unredacted material is from 30:36 to 30:40. Part 4 of 12 from Section II. Factual Results of the Obstruction Investigation. This subsection of Volume 2, pages 62-77, provides the details surrounding the President's decision to fire the FBI Director and the circumstances surrounding his request for Comey's "loyalty." Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Comey (1:00) Comey Testifies Before the Senate Judiciary Committee and Declines to Answer Questions About Whether the President is Under Investigation (2:30) The President Makes the Decision to Terminate Comey (5:45) Analysis (21:25) Obstructive act (21:33) Nexus to a proceeding (23:44) Intent (25:29) Mueller Report Audio - muellerreportaudio.com Presented by Timberlane Media Support via PayPal: donate@timberlanemedia.com Donate with Crypto Music by Lee Rosevere

The whole damn crew reunites to talk about how the UK elected a failed muppet as prime minister and what that means for_____ (you decide). With a swift shift, the crew calls out which fictional characters are Trump voters (you'll be surprised) and then - believe it or not - offering a take on current events, the crew of Salty Jason's Revenge offers thoughts on the five+ hours of hearings former FBI Director Mueller will be sitting through tomorrow (July 24th). PLUS at least one of the crew sounds like they're talking from a toilet stall.

In this episode of FBI Retired Case File Review, retired agents Jim Sweeney and Rich Macko review the March 16, 1994, Broad Street shootout where Rich Macko and another agent were shot and seriously injured, and a drug gang member killed after a violent confrontation that occurred while the agents were attempting a car stop. The surviving gang members had to be tried twice for the attempted assassination of federal officers. FBI Director Louie Freeh visited the agents directly after the shootout and, for their actions, later awarded them the FBI’s highest award for bravery the “Medal of Valor.” At the time, Jim was the supervisor and Rich a member of  the Philadelphia Division’s  Violent Traffickers Project, a task force of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies established in 1988 to investigate violent drug dealers and drug-related murders. Also known as Squad 2, the federally funded unit was responsible for the dismantling of more than 50 gangs that had been selling drugs in the Philadelphia area.   Henry James Sweeney “Jim” served in the FBI for more than 39 years, six as a support employee and 33 as an agent. During his agent time, Philadelphia was his first and only office of assignment. He was the supervisor of Squad 2 for twenty-one years. Jim established the squad in 1986 when the FBI was first given the federal mandate to investigate drugs along with the DEA. Upon retiring from the FBI Jim was employed as a special agent with US Treasury Office of Inspector General traveling the country working Stimulus Funding frauds. Currently,  is working as an investigator for the City of Philadelphia, Office of the Inspector General. Richard Macko served in the FBI for 34 years, three as a support employee and 31 as an agent. For most of his career he conducted long term Criminal Gang  and Organized Crime investigations in the Philadelphia Division.. Late in his career, he accepted a special assignment to Boston where he was part of the team who investigated and prosecuted a corrupt retired Boston FBI Supervisor convicted of crimes related to his long-term association with South Boston Organized Crime Boss “Whitey” Bulger. Macko was awarded the “Directors Award for Investigative Excellence” by FBI Director Mueller for his efforts in the case. Before retiring, Macko was deployed to Iraq by the FBI to assist in the investigation of genocide and crimes against humanity under the  Iraqi Criminal Law. Currently, he as a Senior Law Enforcement Advisor in Afghanistan for the 101st Airborne and 25th Infantry Divisions of the U.S. Army and went “outside the wire” on more than 50 missions in direct support of our troops.   Join my Reader Team to get the FBI Reading Resource - Books about the FBI, written by FBI agents, the 20 clichés about the FBI Reality Checklist, and keep up to date on the FBI in books, TV, and movies via my monthly email. Join here.   Jerri Williams, a retired FBI agent, author and podcaster, attempts to relive her glory days by writing crime fiction about greed and hosting FBI Retired Case File Review, a true crime/history podcast. Her novels—Pay To Play and Greedy Givers—inspired by actual true crime FBI cases, feature temptation, corruption, and redemption, and are available on Amazon.     

The Roy Green Show Iran is making headlines, threatening retaliation against the U.S. for withdrawing from the JCPOA. Will the people of Iran suffer again because of renewed sanctions and will they again take to the streets calling for an end of their oppressive religious government? Meanwhile, our guest has accused Western governments of doing nothing to help Iranians who risk their lives protesting in the streets of the country.   Guest:  Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Canadian human rights activist whose family fled Iran in 1979 - Tomorrow the United States will open its new embassy in Jerusalem on the 70th birthday of the State of Israel. The result of a decision taken by U.S. President Donald Trump whose domestic approval numbers are up. Elsewhere, the POTUS is about to engage in a historic meeting with North Korea's dictator Kim Jong-Un, and some suggest that this has put him in line for a Nobel Peace Prize.       But former FBI Director Mueller continues his search for collusion between Russia and the Trump organization during 2016 election campaign, porn star Stormy Daniels continues to generate headlines with her non disclosure deal with Trump, and Democrats continue to discuss impeachment of their president.  And Trump continues to describe NAFTA as the worst deal made by the U.S.     Guest: Fran Coombs.  Managing editor. Rasmussen Reports polling and where Donald Trump stands with American voters today. - In a recent column for the National Post, Tristin Hopper called out the "myth" that Western Canada would be richer if we only refined our own oil. Since 1970 only one refinery has been built in Western Canada and that is, in Tristian's words, "kind of a boondoggle."   Guest: Tristin Hopper, opinions writer with the National Post, his recent column is ‘Why Canada shouldn't refine the oil it exports'​ - Scott Newark and Roy look at the questions surrounding multiple high tension, high profile cases.   Could Alek Minassian's lawyers be setting the stage for a Not Criminally Responsible plea?   What should the response be to the revelation of a self-confessed ISIS assassin living in Toronto, and has the situation changed now that he has retracted his confession?   What do we know about the deadly knife terrorist knife attack in Paris, what are the ramifications of the newest attack?   Guest:  Scott Newark, Former Alberta Crown prosecutor, former executive director of the Canadian Police Association; senior policy advisor to a federal Public Safety Minister, now adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tomorrow the United States will open its new embassy in Jerusalem on the 70th birthday of the State of Israel. The result of a decision taken by U.S. President Donald Trump whose domestic approval numbers are up. Elsewhere, the POTUS is about to engage in a historic meeting with North Korea's dictator Kim Jong-Un, and some suggest that this has put him in line for a Nobel Peace Prize.   But former FBI Director Mueller continues his search for collusion between Russia and the Trump organization during 2016 election campaign, porn star Stormy Daniels continues to generate headlines with her non disclosure deal with Trump, and Democrats continue to discuss impeachment of their president.  And Trump continues to describe NAFTA as the worst deal made by the U.S. Guest: Fran Coombs.  Managing editor. Rasmussen Reports polling and where Donald Trump stands with American voters today. Photo: (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While he rarely speaks to the media, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s name makes headlines nearly everyday. He’s leading the probe into Russian meddling into the 2016 presidential campaign, and Garrett Graff was one of the first journalists to closely follow his career. Graff’s 2011 book The Threat Matrix offers an intimate look at then-FBI Director Mueller. Graff, who’s the executive director of the Aspen Institute’s Cybersecurity and Technology program, explains how Mueller’s handling of the Russia investigation reflects his commitment to country and the Constitution. It’s tax time and many people may be noticing how the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is impacting their pocketbook. David Mitchell, senior program manager with the Institute’s Financial Security Program, gives his take on who benefits from the new plan. Find out more: www.aspeninstitute.org/insight. Follow us on Twitter, and share your thoughts with us using #AspenInsight.

In part two of our series, John Carlin shared with us lessons on economic espionage and weaponized information. As former Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Security Division, he described how nation state actors exfiltrated data from American companies, costing them hundreds of billions of dollars in losses and more than two million jobs. He also reminded us how important it is for organizations to work with the government as he took us down memory lane with the Sony hack. He explained how destructive an attack can be, by using soft targets, such as email that do not require sophisticated techniques. Transcript Cindy Ng: In part two of John Carlin's talk, we learn more about how nation state actors exfiltrate data from American companies, costing them hundreds of billions of dollars in losses and more than two million jobs. He also took us down memory lane, describing how the Sony hack showed us how successful an attack can be by using soft targets, such as email, that do not require sophisticated techniques. John Carlin: Let me talk a little bit about economic espionage and how we moved into this new space. When I was a computer-hacking prosecutor prosecuting criminal cases, we were plenty busy. And I worked with an FBI squad, and the squad that I worked with did nothing but criminal cases. There was an intelligence squad who was across the hall, and they were behind a locked, secured compartmented door. The whole time I was doing criminal cases, about 10, 15 years ago, we never went on the other side of that door. If an agent switched squads, they just disappeared behind that locked, secured door. I then went over to the FBI to be Chief of Staff to the director, FBI Director Mueller. And when I was there, that door opened and we started to see day-in, day-out what nation state actors were doing to our country. And what we saw were state actors, and we had a literal jumbotron screen the size of a movie theater where we could watch it through a visual interface in real time. And we were watching state actors hop into places like universities, go from the university into your company, and then we would literally watch the data exfiltrate out. As we were watching this, it was an incredible feat of intelligence, but we also realized, "Hey, this is not success. We're watching billions and billions of dollars of what U.S. research and development, and our allies, have developed in losses. We're seeing millions of jobs lost." One estimate has it at more than two million jobs. "What can we do to make it clear that the threat isn't about consumer data or IP, the threat is about everything that you value on your system? And how do we make clear that there's an urgent need to address this problem?" What we did is, when I came back to Justice to lead up the National Security Division, is we looked to start sharing information within government. So, for the first time, every criminal prosecutor's office across the country, all 93 U.S. Attorneys' offices now has someone who's trained on the bits, and the bytes and the Electronic Communication Privacy Act on the one hand. On the other hand, on how to handle sensitive sources and methods, and encouraged to see, can you bring a case? This only happened in 2013. This approach is still very, very new. The FBI issued an edict that said, "Thou shalt share what was formally only on the intelligence side of the house with this new, specially-trained cadre." They then were redeployed out to the field. It's because of that change in approach that we did the first case of its kind, the indictment of five members of the People's Liberation Army, Unit 61398. This was a specialized unit who, as we laid out in the complaint, they were hitting companies like yours and they were doing it for reasons that weren't national security, they weren't nation-state reasons. They were doing things like...Westinghouse was about to do a joint venture with a partner in China, and right before they were gonna into business together, you watched as the Chinese uniformed members of the People's Liberation Army, the second largest military in the world, went in, attacked their system and instead of paying to lease the lead pipe as they were supposed to do the next day, they went in and stole the technical design specifications so they could get it for free. That's one example laid out in the complaint. Or to give another example, and this is why it's not the type of information that is required to be protected by regulation, like consumer data or intellectual property. Instead, for instance, they went in to a solar company, it was a U.S. subsidiary of a German multi-national and they stole the pricing data from that company. Then the Chinese competitor, using this information stolen by the People's Liberation Army, price dumped. They set their product just below where the competitor would be. That forced that competitor into bankruptcy. To add insult to injury, when that company sued them for the illegal practice of price dumping, they went and stole the litigation strategy right out from under them. When people said, "Why are you indicting the People's Liberation Army? It isn't state-to-state type activity. Everybody does it, what's the big deal? Criminal process is the wrong way to do it." The reason why we made it public were a couple. One was to make public what they were doing so that businesses would know what it was to protect themselves. Second, what they were doing was theft and that's never been tolerated. And so, there's a concept in U.S. law of what's called an easement. This is the idea that if you let someone walk across your lawn long enough, in U.S. law, they get what's called an easement. They get the right to walk across your lawn. That's why people put up no trespassing signs. International law, which is primarily a law of customary law, works the same way. And as long as we were continuing to allow them to steal day-in, day-out, the Director of the FBI called them like a drunken gorilla because they were so obvious in terms of who they were. They didn't care if they got caught because they were so confident there'd be no consequence. Then, we are setting international law, we are setting the standard as one where it's okay. So, in some respects, this case was a giant "No trespass" sign, "Get off our lawn." The other thing that we did, though, was we wanted to show the seriousness, that this was their day job. And so, we showed that the activity started at 9 a.m. Beijing time, that it went at a high level from 9:00 to noon Beijing time, it decreased from noon to 1:00, it then increased again from 1:00 to around 6 p.m. Beijing time, decreased on Chinese holidays, weekends. This was the day job of the military, and it's not fair and it can't be expected that a private company alone can defend itself against that type of adversary. This single case had an enormous impact on Chinese behavior, and I wanna move a little bit to the next major cases that occurred. So, that's economic espionage, theft for monetary value. We also started seeing some of the first destructive attacks. Everyone remembers Sony, and many people think of it as the first destructive attack on U.S. soil. It really wasn't the first destructive attack. The first destructive attack was on Sands Casino by what the Director of National Intelligence called Iranian-affiliated officials. Those Iranian-affiliated actors, when they attacked Sands, they did so because they didn't like what the head of Sands Casino had said about Iran and the Ayatollahs called on people within Iran to attack the company. They did a destructive attack that essentially turned computers into bricks. And it was only, actually, because there was someone quick thinking in the IT staff who was not authorized by their policy, by the way, who spotted what was occurring and essentially pulled the plug, and in that respect was able to segment the attack and keep it confined to a small to a small area, it didn't cause more damage. That didn't get nearly the attention of Sony, so let's talk a little bit about Sony. You know, I spent nearly 20 years in government working on national security criminal threats. We did enumerable war games where we war-gamed out, "What's it gonna look like if rogue nuclear arms nation decides to attack the United States through cyber-enabled means?" And I don't know about you guys but we all got it wrong, because not once did we guess that the first major incident was gonna be over a movie about a bunch of pot smokers. It's the only time...I remember every morning I'd meet with the Director of the FBI, the Attorney General to go over at the threats. That Christmas we'd all watched the movie the day before, shared movie reviews. And it's the only time in my career where I've gone into the Situation Room to brief the president on a serious national security incident and had to start by trying to summarize the plot of that movie which, for those of you unlucky enough to have seen it, not that I'm passing critical judgement, it is not an easy plot to summarize. So, why did we do that? Why were we treating this like a serious national security event that had presidential attention? The attack had multiple parts. One was, just like the attack on Sands Casino, it essentially turned computers into bricks. Secondly, they stole, so this is like the economic espionage threat. They stole intellectual property and they distributed it using a third party, the WikiLeaks-type example. Using third parties, they distributed that stolen intellectual property and tried to cause harm to Sony. Nobody remembers those two. What everybody remembers, and this is the weaponizing of the information idea, is that by focusing on a soft target like email communications, it was the salacious email communications inside the company between executives that got such massive media attention. That and, of course, the fact that it's a movie company. That lesson was not unnoticed, and so there's a lot of focus on it and we'll talk about it later. And it was used again, clearly, in the Russian attempt to influence elections not just here in the United States with our most recent election cycle, but both before that in elections across Europe. You can see them trying to use similar tactics and techniques right now when it comes to the French election. They clearly stumbled on the fact that, "Hey, it's not the information inside a company that people put great safeguards around, like their crown jewel of intellectual property. It can be the softer parts like email, like routine communications that, if we gather them in bulk, we can use to weaponize and cause harm to the company." The reason why we treated that as such a serious national security concern in the White House was because of the reason behind the attack. Just like the attack on Sands Casino, this attack on Sony was fundamentally an attack on our values. It was an attack on the idea that we have free speech. And similarly, the Russian attempts are fundamentally an attack on the idea of democracy. That's why they're attacking democratic institutions not just here in the United States, but across the world. For you, in the private sector, as we're designing and you're thinking about, you need to have products inside your system that can allow you to monitor broadly what type of attacks are occurring within your perimeter so you can get ahead of a weaponized information-type attack. That means fortifying defenses beyond those that are under legislation or regulation. In order to do that, that means figuring out and using products that are business-friendly. By that I mean, you may be the best information technology folks in the world, if your business side can't understand the tools that you're using or the risks that you're trying to describe to them, then you can't engage them on what could really harm the company most. And that's what you need to do your job, to figure out what that is. Another thing that we can work on now when it comes to responding quickly is how fast these events occur. And these days, the best practice is to monitor social media. Now, I know a couple companies that they're monitoring social media. In part, it's not just for cyber crisis, right? Every crisis moves that quickly. Some are monitoring it because a certain president of the United States right now, occasionally, will tweet something out in the middle of the night that can cause a company, if he singles you out, he can cause your share price to torpedo by the time the market opens. So certainly, a couple of companies who've actually been though that have rapid communications plans in place, and we've other clients now that just as a best practice have, essentially, a team monitoring that Twitter account from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. so they can get a communication into the media mainstream before the stock market opens. That's the same idea when it comes to having systems in place, so you're monitoring social media for mentions of your company and then having a rapid response plan in place. That can also be majorly benefitted by you and your understanding of the system. If you spot where the data is that was stolen and think through with your business side how it can be used, you can get in front of it suddenly appearing somewhere on social media through WikiLeaks or some other site, just through Twitter and so that you're ready to have a rapid response that addresses your business risk. I want to focus a little bit, as we did, on this idea of working together, government and the private sector. I'm gonna go back to the economic espionage case for a second, the China case. When we did that PLA case, for years before when I was doing the criminal cases, I think companies didn't work with law enforcement because they figured, "What's the upside?" And I'll just talk about that China case, but that case, the indictment of the People's Liberation Army, it changed Chinese behavior, maybe not forever, but for now. It caused President Xi, I think that case, plus the response to Sony where we used the same type of response when it came to North Korea, which was...look, it was incredibly beneficial to Sony when we were able to say that it was North Korea. Until then, all of the attention was on Sony, "What did they do wrong? Why weren't their systems better? Isn't it ridiculous what their executives were saying?" After we could say that it was North Korea, the narrative changed to, "Hey, Government, what are you doing to protect us against nation-state threats?" That is why attributions can matter. And what did the government do? We applied now, for the second time, the approach that we'd applied for the first time with the People's Liberation Army of, number one, figuring out who did it. And that required working closely with the company to figure out not just what they took, but why they would have taken it, what could have precipitated the event. Number two, collect information in a way that we can make it public. And number three, use it, cause harm to the adversary. And that's why in Sony, unlike in the PLA case, we didn't have a criminal case available to us, so instead of using a criminal case you saw us publicly announce through the FBI who did it, and use that as a basis, then, to sanction North Korea. We realized sitting around the Situation Room table, lucky it was North Korea. If it had been some other cyber actor, unlike North Korea, who hadn't done so many other bad things, we wouldn't have been able to sanction them the way you could terrorists or those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction. So, going forwards, the president signed a new executive order that allows us to sanction cyber actors. The combination of that new executive order which significantly allows, to use the PLA example, you to sanction not just those who take it, but the companies who make money off of it, those who profit from the stolen information. I think it was that combination of the new executive order in place, the PLA case and the realization that we could make things public and would cause harm that caused President Xi, the leader of China, to blink and sign an unprecedented agreement with President Obama. He sent a crew, we negotiated with them day and night for several days. And they said for the first time, "Hey, we agree, using your military intelligence to target private companies for the benefit of their economic competitor is wrong, and we agree that that should be a norm that you don't do that." That caused the G20 to sign it, and since then we have seen in government and private group monitoring, there's a decrease in terms of how China is targeting private companies. Now, as some of you may be seeing, though, their definition of what's theft for private gain and ours might differ, and there's certainly sectors that are still getting hit and traditional intelligence collection continues.

Our discussion segment this week contains an increasingly relevant discussion of three Frequently Asked Legal Questions that the ongoing Comey scandal has raised. First, was the President legally allowed to fire FBI Director Comey? Second, now that Comey is gone, how can a special prosecutor or independent counsel be appointed to continue to the Russia investigation? [Note: this just happened. Our episode talks about the legal mechanism by which former FBI Director Mueller has just been appointed special prosecutor.] And third—and most speculatively—can a sitting President legally be indicted and stand trial in a criminal case? The answers may be surprising. [If you want to skip right to the main event, the discussion of the possible prosecution of the President starts at 18:09.]Our discussion segment closes with a Trump Lump about whether the President can be sued over appointing unqualified officials to high government office. [38:21-end.]Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.