Mediaboss Marketing

Learn something new every day:

Hillary Clinton and her staffers still have active State Department security clearances, meaning they still have access to classified intelligence, according to Fox News' Malia Zimmerman.

However, Clinton and her aides are in danger of losing that access now that the State Department has opened a "formal inquiry" into whether she and her team mishandled classified information when she served at the top spot at Foggy Bottom.

It's the latest development in a very long story involving Clinton and her use of an unauthorized private State Department email server.

It's unclear when this new inquiry by the State Department was first launched, but it seems to have come on the heels of former FBI Director James Comey's announcement in July 2016 that he'd recommend no charges be brought against Clinton for her ethically dubious use of a homebrew server.

Fox's Zimmerman outlined one possible consequence of the new inquiry, writing, "Depending on the outcome of the current State Department inquiry, Clinton and her aides could have their access to sensitive government documents terminated."

To be clear, it's not unusual for former senior officials to maintain some level of access to classified information, as national security attorney Bradley Moss explained Wednesday to LawNewz.com. This is done with the idea that former officials can be called on to advise on issues involving sensitive intelligence.

However, it may still strike some as odd that Clinton and her aides have maintained their clearance despite that Comey himself characterized her handling of classified State information as "extremely reckless." The State Department's own Inspector General even reported her private server was a serious violation of department policy.

"At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act," the IG's report said.

If the State Department revokes Clinton's clearance, she can appeal the decision. However, it seems unlikely it'll come to that, according to Moss.

"It would be unusual for this to happen for a senior official but Clinton's behavior was unusual as well," he said.

A Clinton spokesman meanwhile downplayed news of the new inquiry, and suggested that going after the private server story is tantamount to beating a dead horse.

"Nothing's been more thoroughly dissected. It's over. Case closed. Literally," Nick Merrill told Fox.

Read the original post:
Wait, Hillary Clinton still has a State Department security clearance? - Washington Examiner

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is viewed no more favorably now than she was before last years election, a rare feat since, according to Gallups polling, over the past quarter century, the favorable ratings of losing presidential candidates generally have increased after the election -- some in the immediate aftermath and others in the months that followed.

With the exception of John Kerry, for whom there are no comparable data, losing presidential candidates since 1992 have experienced a boost of at least four percentage points in favorability when averaging their ratings from the day after the election through the following June, Gallup notes.

Forty-one percent of Americans have a favorable view of Clinton in the most recent poll which is within the 41 to 43 percent range Gallup has recorded since November.

The majority of Americans, 57 percent, view Clinton unfavorably and have viewed her unfavorably in all Gallup polls on the former first lady since January 2016.

The polling group observed that some of Clintons post-election appearances were not well-received. Including an interview last month in which Clinton blamed her election loss on various factors, including weak Democratic Party infrastructure, mishandlings of an investigation by former FBI Director James Comey and biased media coverage of her campaign. Though she claimed to take responsibility for every decision her campaign made, many viewed her comments as shirking blame for her loss.

They added that Americans have liked Clinton most when her role was less political -- such as secretary of state or first lady weathering her husband's public scandal -- and her ratings have suffered each time she has run for office.

According to Gallup polling, Trump, similar to previous winners, got an increase in favorability post-election.

The surveys results were based on telephone interviews conducted June 7-11, 2017, with a random sample of 1,009 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Read the original:
Gallup: Hillary Clinton 'Unique' in Having No Post-Election Gain in Favorability Ratings - Townhall

Former FBI Director JamesComeymisled the American people during last years presidential campaignwhen he referred to the Clinton email scandal as a matter, not an investigation. He did it willfully. He did it intentionally. And he did it at the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Mr. Comeymisled the American people in the early weeks of the Trump administration by furtheringthe perception that President Trump was under investigation, when in fact he was not. He again did this willfully and intentionally.

Comey recently admitted that, after beingfired from the FBI, he had a friend leak an internal FBI document to the New York Timesdetailing aconversation Comey had with President Trump. Comey testified under oath that he ordered the leak to helpcreate public momentum for the appointment of a special counsel, which we now know is Comeys mentor and predecessor, Robert Mueller.

The American people want justice to be blind. They want equal justice and equal protection for everyone. But Mr. Comeys actions continue to call his impartiality, and the impartiality of the Holder and Lynch Justice departments, into question.

On May 7, 2014, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for a special counsel to investigate the IRS targeting of conservatives for their political beliefs. Comey and Attorney General Eric Holder blocked the appointment.This despite the factthatthe lead investigator they assigned to the case, BarbaraBosserman, was a max-out contributor to President Obamas reelection campaign.

This is the type of unequal justice that Americans despise. No special counsel in the IRS targeting investigation. No special counsel for the Clinton email investigation. But if its about protecting Comeys reputation and hurting President Trump, then of course there has to be a special counsel.

Throughout 2015 and 2016 there were calls from Congress for a special counsel in the Clinton email scandal. Again the Justice Department refused, even after it was revealed that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with Bill Clinton less than a week before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton. No special counsel was established, even after some unusual Justice Department immunity deals were revealed, including those designed to protect Secretary Clintons chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and Bryan Pagliano, who set up the email server in the first place.

This is the type of unequal justice that Americans despise. No special counsel in the IRS targeting investigation. No special counsel for the Clinton email investigation. But if its about protecting Mr.Comeysreputation and hurting President Trump, then of course there has to be a special counsel.

We appreciate Mr. Muellers service to our country, but his past testimony as FBIdirector before the House Judiciary Committee did not inspire confidence about his impartiality. Just fourweeks after the treasury inspector general released the report on the IRS targeting scandal and the Justice Department began their investigation into the matter,Mr. Mueller could not answer even the most basic questions about the investigation. He was asked:Who is the lead agent? Howmany agents have been assigned to the case? And, Have any victims been interviewed? His responses were, I dont know, I dont know, and I dont know.

Investigating the targeting of conservatives by the IRS, which was the biggest story in the news at the time, was clearly not a priority for Mr. Mueller. As FBI director, he didnt even know who was doing what.

But as special counsel investigating the Trump administration? Youd better believe Mr. Mueller has handpicked the exact team he wants.

James Quarles, a partner atWilmerHale,was a $10,000contributorto House and Senate Democrats. He alsohasa long history of supporting Democratic presidential candidates, includingDukakis,Gore,Kerry,ObamaandClinton.

Jeannie Rhee,a senior adviser to former Attorney General Eric Holder, wasanObamaandClintonsupporter. She also represented the Clinton foundation in litigation, and personally represented Hillary Clinton.

Andrew Weissmann,a former Justice Department official, was also an Obamacontributor.

Elizabeth Prelogar, a former law clerk for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, donated to both theObamaandClintonpresidential campaigns.

In fact, of thedozenpeople named to Muellers investigation team so far, nonehave similarly supported Republican presidential candidates.

The House has a responsibility to defend the deeply-held American principle of equal justice under the law. Thats why we believe its time for the House to have hearings on the troubling matter of the motivation and organization of this investigation.

The past actions of Mr. Mueller and Mr. Comey as part of the Holder and Lynch justice departments call into question their impartiality. If this investigation is to be taken seriously, it is important that theAmerican people get the answers they deserve.

Republican Jim Jordan represents Ohio's Fourth District in the U.S. House of Representatives and is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Republican Mark Meadows represents North Carolina's 11th Congressional District and is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus and a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Republican Jody Hice serves Georgia's 10th Congressional District and is a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Go here to see the original:
Trump Russia probe gets special counsel but not Hillary, not IRS? Time to investigate the investigators - Fox News

Alphabet is asking a judge to find Uber in contempt for failing to notify the court that former CEO Travis Kalanick was aware one of his top executives had proprietary Alphabet information in his possession and that he ordered its destruction.

The executive, Anthony Levandowski, allegedly told Kalanick and two other employees in March 2016 that he had five discs containing Alphabet documents, several months before the ride-hail company acquired his startup, Otto.

Levandowski, who had previously led Alphabets self-driving car project, has been accused of stealing technology and taking it to Uber.

Judge William Alsup recently ordered Uber to produce documents and correspondence related to the case, including information showing whether any evidence had been destroyed. On Wednesday, Alphabet cited a June 5 Uber court filing that shows Kalanick asked Levandowski to destroy the documents in question. Uber had to present the information by March of this year but didnt report its findings until June.

Ubers June 8 filing reads:

On or about March 11, 2016, Mr. Levandowski reported to Mr. Kalanick, Nina Qi and Cameron Poetzscher at Uber as well as Lior Ron that he had identified five discs in his possession containing Google information. Mr. Kalanick conveyed to Mr. Levandowski in response that Mr. Levandowski should not bring any Google information into Uber and that Uber did not want any Google information. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Levandowski communicated to Uber that he had destroyed the discs.

This was around the same time that Levandowski began consulting for Ubers self-driving arm, as we reported.

The ride-hail company maintains that none of these documents made it to Uber and that Kalanick did not encourage Levandowski to bring the files to the company, a condition that was also included in his employee agreement. On May 30, Uber fired Levandowski, who pleaded the Fifth Amendment earlier in the case, for not complying with the courts orders.

Uber was also directed by the court to produce a report from Stroz Friedberg, a forensic firm that Uber had hired to conduct a due diligence report on Otto before the acquisition. The report could reveal if Uber was made aware of any Alphabet technology Levandowski may be using within Otto.

Now Stroz is required to produce the report, the identities of the Otto employees that participated in the report and any documents those employees produced for the report.

Levandowski, who is not a party to the suit and is not represented by Ubers attorneys, previously argued that those documents are protected by attorney-client privilege. The judge disagreed and compelled Uber to produce the report.

Ubers attorneys did not hire Stroz on behalf of Levandowski and Uber; they hired Stroz to investigate Levandowski, the order reads.

It follows, then, that an order compelling Stroz to produce these materials does not violate Levandowskis Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.

Uber is in the midst of navigating a major upheaval, with Tuesdays resignation of its CEO Travis Kalanick and the shuffling of key board members, but this lawsuit could prove to be the companys biggest threat. The embattled ride-hail player could face criminal charges over the possession of stolen documents, though the judge has previously chided Alphabet for lack of evidence that those files Levandowski allegedly downloaded made it to Uber.

Link:
Alphabet says Travis Kalanick knew one of Uber's acquisitions had taken Alphabet files - Recode

Ousted Uber CEO Travis Kalanick may have known a star engineer possessed trade secrets stolen from Google, according to a recent court filing.

The court case centers on Waymo, the self-driving car unit of Google-parent Alphabet, and Anthony Levandowski, an engineer who left Waymo to start his own company, Otto, that was later acquired by Uber.

Waymo alleges Levandowski took 14,000 documents with him, including trade secrets. Waymo attorneys filings released this week suggest that Kalanick knew Levandowski possessed, and later destroyed, some of the information in question:

On or about March 11, 2016, Mr. Levandowski reported to [Travis] Kalanick, Nina Qi and Cameron Poetzscher at Uber as well as Lior Ron that he had identified five discs in his possession containing Google information. Mr. Kalanick conveyed to Mr. Levandowski in response that Mr. Levandowski should not bring any Google information into Uber and that Uber did not want any Google information. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Levandowski communicated to Uber that he had destroyed the discs.

Levandowski has exercised his Fifth Amendment rights and has largely been silent on what is in his possession. But a judge told Uber to use "the full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual and other authority" to compel Levandowski to return the documents by May 31. When Levandowski didn't deliver, he was fired.

New filings this week, though, indicate that Uber may have had access to those files earlier, and allowed them to be destroyed prior to the deadline. The information, previously unearthed by TechCrunch, sheds more doubt on the already murky relationship between Levandowski and his former employers at Uber.

"No statement of any destruction was provided pursuant to the Court's Order by the March 31 deadline," Waymo's lawyers wrote in a motion. "Yet, over two months later, Defendants Uber's and [Otto's] June 5 response to Waymo's expedited interrogatory revealed that documents were destroyed, allegedly at Uber's direction, back in March 2016."

The timeline of when Levandowski ended his tenure at Waymo and began negotiating with Uber has become central to the case.

Levandowski collected $120 million from Google, despite involvement with at least one start-up that would ultimately compete with the company, the case alleges. Waymo's lawyers said Levandowski was already trying to staff up his competing start-up, Otto, while he worked at Google but he waited until he got his payout to make the details of Otto public.

Uber, Kalanick and Levandowski's attorney did not immediately respond to CNBC requests for comment.

It all comes amid a rocky time within Uber, after reports of sexual harassment and gender bias led to an internal investigation into workplace culture. The company is also without top leadership now that Kalanick has resigned in the face of an investor revolt.

"This is certainly a part of the workplace culture: toe stepping, don't be afraid to get in people's faces," Kate Bischoff of tHRive Law & Consulting told CNBC last week. "'Oh, we should hire the guy from Waymo' that's not something outside the realm of possibility when you've created a culture that wants to ride the line."

The dispute between Waymo and Uber is playing out in two different arenas: In addition to the civil court case, the case has also been referred to the U.S. attorney for investigation of the possible theft of trade secrets.

"There are a whole host of variables that the government takes into account," Phil Bezanson, white collar partner at Bracewell, said last week. "Corporate culture is one, tone at the top, pervasiveness of wrongdoing, how the company responded. Because we have so many different subject matter issues, an overall corporate culture assessment is a good thing. The DOJ will pay close attention to it."

See original here:
Uber CEO Travis Kalanick may have known about stolen trade secrets, court filing indicates - CNBC