The FBI out of Washington are a law unto themselves , they can and will , do as they choose , knowing that the Judiciary ,with very few exceptions has their respective backs .
The Mar - a - Lago debacle being a classic example.
I think you will find exactly what you expect to find- there was no probable cause. We used to have judges, I hope we did at least, that would have understood the distinction, even in politically charged cases like this one. That no longer exists- the US government can now ask for and receive a signed warrant just on exactly that- a belief that they might have a 1% chance of finding what the warrant says they are looking for. No one in the US government or judicial branch seems to give f*** about what probable cause actually means.
In recent essays here one our fellow readers and commenters pointed to an article in Tablet magazine entitled “Whole of Society”a scheme of Obama’s for state fascism through institutions, NGO’s and corporations to drive out dissenters. Alistair Crooke picked up the theme in his most recent essay. It would seem Ritter is a victim of this extreme imposition into the freedoms we once enjoyed. Tulsi Gabbard another victim of the new Fascism of the USA that is rushing toward a Nazi/soviet style future completely undeterred by any real pushback as we seemed stunned into some level of compliance as we watch our government take us into a world loved only by the power mad Zionists and the mentally ill.
It was a good read. As was I, but........I wonder what the effect and/or impact of suing The DHS would be. Government seems to massage the law in their favor (like the lawfare ghouls) to make challenges to their power meaningless and costly. I am not a lawyer and don't try to be one so it's a bit of a mystery as to how the ordinary citizen can sue the government and win or at least make a difference.
If timing is important: ‘….an article I published in Consortium News on February 14, 2023–six days before the Russian Embassy meeting.’, then the timing of the investigation (months before an election) is also important, and casts a shadow on motive behind the investigation. Political>justice. Another.
Yes the FBI is investigative. The problem is when they act as an investigative “arm” of a cabal of sister agencies. When they engage in collusion with political campaigns for eg. And then when they are led by those who believe they can be Investigator, Prosecutor, Judge and Jury. You know like Comey!
in the days of end to end encrypted, supposedly private email services like ProtonMail, it's hard to imagine a physical device deployed.
I would imagine there is already a FISA warrant, given the purported purpose of the investigation and his demonstrated foreign ties,
so if he has an encrypted email service,
they'd have at a minimum SIGINT type indications of such.
And the notion that some bunch of guys in Switzerland like ProtonMail or some other handful of guys, even if not infiltrated from the git go, can dream up encryption that the US IC can't crack is simply not credible to me.
There are some exotic dedicated comms devices, but the idea of Scott and the Russians communicating that way is pretty wacky. Whoever the judge was, I imagine they really gaslit him. If this were the case, there should probably have been, as you say, some SIGINT type indications.
However, that type of setup would only be used in the exceptional case of an agent who was in a very difficult environment and providing highly sensitive information. That can't possibly be the case with Ritter--who has long been cut off from all sensitive contacts of high value and is working in public. The whole things smells of intimidation.
"whoever the judge was" therein lies the problem with our so called justice system. The government knows how to jiggle the system to get the results they want the Constitution be damned. An independent judiciary is a myth. The biggest mistake the framers made-lifetime appointments.
yes - intimidation is the minimum objective, punishing his bank accounts another. Raises the cost of "free speech" to a level that makes everyone paying attention stop and reconsider.
Also scanning his electronic communications to see if he's communicating with anyone who still has clearances and access is an objective. Can you spell "espionage"? Or at least establishing violations of various NDAs and regulations.
I have buds who post on certain issues far too often while citing their "anonymous" former friends still maintaining contacts or still operating in the classified world,
and I think they're playing with fire, just begging to get raided.
Or being played in some instances.
I think someone is overdue a raid and some folks hung out to dry to spell it out - there are limits and if you cross those limits and disclose sensitive govt info to friends and former colleagues, there can and will be serious consequences. Perhaps not Scott Ritter; as you note, he's been out a very long time, and was never particularly popular if I have it right. He's well read and very articulate, but there's no sign to me that he has current inside info. (In fact, he seems very willing to cite "facts" about some theaters with precious little apparent support.)
The FBI out of Washington are a law unto themselves , they can and will , do as they choose , knowing that the Judiciary ,with very few exceptions has their respective backs .
The Mar - a - Lago debacle being a classic example.
I think you will find exactly what you expect to find- there was no probable cause. We used to have judges, I hope we did at least, that would have understood the distinction, even in politically charged cases like this one. That no longer exists- the US government can now ask for and receive a signed warrant just on exactly that- a belief that they might have a 1% chance of finding what the warrant says they are looking for. No one in the US government or judicial branch seems to give f*** about what probable cause actually means.
Right. Just like the Russia Hoax. Probably the same players, or drawn from the same pool.
In recent essays here one our fellow readers and commenters pointed to an article in Tablet magazine entitled “Whole of Society”a scheme of Obama’s for state fascism through institutions, NGO’s and corporations to drive out dissenters. Alistair Crooke picked up the theme in his most recent essay. It would seem Ritter is a victim of this extreme imposition into the freedoms we once enjoyed. Tulsi Gabbard another victim of the new Fascism of the USA that is rushing toward a Nazi/soviet style future completely undeterred by any real pushback as we seemed stunned into some level of compliance as we watch our government take us into a world loved only by the power mad Zionists and the mentally ill.
Yes, read Crooke yesterday. Glad to see that Tulsi is suing DHS.
It was a good read. As was I, but........I wonder what the effect and/or impact of suing The DHS would be. Government seems to massage the law in their favor (like the lawfare ghouls) to make challenges to their power meaningless and costly. I am not a lawyer and don't try to be one so it's a bit of a mystery as to how the ordinary citizen can sue the government and win or at least make a difference.
If timing is important: ‘….an article I published in Consortium News on February 14, 2023–six days before the Russian Embassy meeting.’, then the timing of the investigation (months before an election) is also important, and casts a shadow on motive behind the investigation. Political>justice. Another.
Yes the FBI is investigative. The problem is when they act as an investigative “arm” of a cabal of sister agencies. When they engage in collusion with political campaigns for eg. And then when they are led by those who believe they can be Investigator, Prosecutor, Judge and Jury. You know like Comey!
in the days of end to end encrypted, supposedly private email services like ProtonMail, it's hard to imagine a physical device deployed.
I would imagine there is already a FISA warrant, given the purported purpose of the investigation and his demonstrated foreign ties,
so if he has an encrypted email service,
they'd have at a minimum SIGINT type indications of such.
And the notion that some bunch of guys in Switzerland like ProtonMail or some other handful of guys, even if not infiltrated from the git go, can dream up encryption that the US IC can't crack is simply not credible to me.
There are some exotic dedicated comms devices, but the idea of Scott and the Russians communicating that way is pretty wacky. Whoever the judge was, I imagine they really gaslit him. If this were the case, there should probably have been, as you say, some SIGINT type indications.
However, that type of setup would only be used in the exceptional case of an agent who was in a very difficult environment and providing highly sensitive information. That can't possibly be the case with Ritter--who has long been cut off from all sensitive contacts of high value and is working in public. The whole things smells of intimidation.
"whoever the judge was" therein lies the problem with our so called justice system. The government knows how to jiggle the system to get the results they want the Constitution be damned. An independent judiciary is a myth. The biggest mistake the framers made-lifetime appointments.
yes - intimidation is the minimum objective, punishing his bank accounts another. Raises the cost of "free speech" to a level that makes everyone paying attention stop and reconsider.
Also scanning his electronic communications to see if he's communicating with anyone who still has clearances and access is an objective. Can you spell "espionage"? Or at least establishing violations of various NDAs and regulations.
I have buds who post on certain issues far too often while citing their "anonymous" former friends still maintaining contacts or still operating in the classified world,
and I think they're playing with fire, just begging to get raided.
Or being played in some instances.
I think someone is overdue a raid and some folks hung out to dry to spell it out - there are limits and if you cross those limits and disclose sensitive govt info to friends and former colleagues, there can and will be serious consequences. Perhaps not Scott Ritter; as you note, he's been out a very long time, and was never particularly popular if I have it right. He's well read and very articulate, but there's no sign to me that he has current inside info. (In fact, he seems very willing to cite "facts" about some theaters with precious little apparent support.)