Monday, January 17, 2022

As time draws near for FISA memo release, Dems are in full-panic mode: What are they afraid of?

by JD Heyes, Natural News:

The only politicians on Capitol Hill who seem to be concerned about the potential weaponization of the FBI and Justice Department against a rival presidential campaign are Republicans. They are also the only ones who seem to want to make sure all Americans know about it.

Democrats, on the other hand, couldn’t care less. In fact, many of them are activelyundermining efforts by GOP leaders and rank-and-file members to inform Americans about what will quite possibly be a scandal so bad nothing we’ve seen before comes close in comparison.

Earlier this month Americans who watch something other than fake news networks like CNNABC NewsMSNBC, and so forth learned that Republican leaders on the House Intelligence Committee, after months of investigation and review of findings, authored a four-page memo that allegedly documents the systematic abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by Deep State operatives within DOJ and the FBI, on behalf of the Obama administration.

The memo purports to show that operatives schemed to improperly obtain a FISA court surveillance warrant that was used to spy on President Donald J. Trump’s campaign, then, perhaps, to undermine his transition and presidency in the months afterward. (Related: Judge Napolitano urges Republicans to release explosive, classified “FISA memo” on House floor: “Public is entitled to know.”)

Were that not so, then “human barometer” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, wouldn’t be working so hard (along with other Democrats and their sycophant mouthpieces in the media and commentariat) to discredit its contents before Americans have even seen it.

“Rep. Adam Schiff has many talents, though few compare to his ability to function as a human barometer of Democratic panic. The greater the level of Schiff hot, pressured air, the more trouble the party knows it’s in,” writes Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly A. Strassel.

She noted further:

Mr. Schiff’s millibars have been popping ever since the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, on which he is ranking Democrat, last week voted to make a classified GOP memo about FBI election year abuses available to every House member. Mr. Schiff has spit and spun and apoplectically accused his Republican colleagues of everything short of treason. The memo, he insists, is “profoundly misleading,” not to mention “distorted” and “political,” and an attack on the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He initially tried to block his colleagues from reading it. Having failed, he’s now arguing Americans can know the full story only if they see the underlying classified documents.

How convenient, she continued, since the Justice Department has already come out in opposition to releasing the memo — which is hard to believe, given that Trump is the likely target of abuse.

Last weekend during an interview with allied media (CNN), Schiff even when so far as to insinuate that American citizens are too stupid to understand the four-page memo; odd, given that while English may be a second language in the “sanctuary state” of California, it’s not in the rest of the country. “Because the American people, unfortunately, don’t have the underlying materials and therefore they can’t see how distorted and misleading this document is.”

Right.

It could be that what’s really making Schiff and the Democrats nervous is that the contents of the memo, which is very well sourced, according to reports, are very likely a spot-on finding of illegal abuse of the FISA court.

GOP lawmakers think so. “Look, what I believe is what my colleagues have said, what I’ve said is the American people need to see this. We want the journalists in this great country to see this. Mostly, we want the American people to understand what the FBI did, how wrong it was,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told Fox News last week.

“I believe this will not end just with firings. I believe there are people who will go to jail. I was very persuaded by the evidence,” noted Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., in a separate Fox News interview.

Watch:

Read More @ NaturalNews.com

BREAKING: NOW FBI Says They Can’t Find Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s Text Messages! (Video)

by Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit:

The world’s premier intelligence agency just lost another batch of text messages!
Does anyone believe this?

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton joined Judge Jeanine Pirro on her FOX News program Saturday night.

Tom Fitton told Judge Jeanine how difficult it was dealing with the Jeff Sessions Justice Department.

Then Tom Fitton dropped this bomb–

The FBI will not turn over Deputy Director Andrew McCabe‘s text messages!

Andrew McCabe was famously mentioned in a Peter Strzok – Lisa Page text message discussing an “insurance policy” against a Donald Trump presidency.

Now this…
The FBI told Judicial Watch they can’t find McCabe’s text messages!

Tom Fitton: We sued back in September for the text messages of the number two at the FBI, Andrew McCabe. And they just told us this week, they gave us everything they’re going to give us, and not one text message was turned over. They lost all of Andrew McCabe’s text messages! I don’t believe it. There’s still gamesmanship going on.

Via Judge Jeanine:

Read More @ TheGatewayPundit.com

Clinton, Podesta And Others In Senate Crosshairs Over Dossier; Given Two Weeks To Respond

0

from ZeroHedge:

GOP Congressional investigators have written six letters to individuals or entities involved or thought to be involved in the funding, creation or distribution of the salacious and unverified “Trump-Russia dossier” believed to have been inappropriately used by the FBI, DOJ and Obama Administration in an effort to undermine Donald Trump as both a candidate and President of the United States. 

Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SCS) wrote six Judiciary Committee letters requesting information from: John Podesta, Donna Brazille, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Robbie Mook, the DNC, and Hillary For America Chief Strategist Joel Benenson.

A brief refresher of facts and allegations: 

  • The DNC and Hillary Clinton’s PAC was revealed by The Washington Post  to have paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS for the creation of a dossier that would be harmful to then-candidate Donald Trump. 
  • Fusion commissioned former UK spy Christopher Steele to assemble the dossier – which is comprised of a series of memos relying largely on Russian government sources to make allegations against Donald Trump and his associates.
  • According to court filings, Fusion also worked with disgraced DOJ official Bruce Ohr, and hired his CIA-linked wife, Nellie Ohr, to assist in the smear campaign against Trump. Bruce Ohr was demoted from his senior DOJ position after it was revealed that he met with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson as well as Christopher Steele – then tried to cover it up. 
  • Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, denied under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he knew about the dossier’s funding, while Clinton’s former spokesman, Brian Fallon, told CNN that Hillary likely had no idea who paid for it either. 
  • Current and past leaders of the DNC, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) also denied knowledge of the document’s funding.
  • Podesta met with Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson the day after the Trump-Russia dossier was published by Buzzfeed News. 

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee letters read in part: 

In October 2017, the Washington Post reported that Hillary for America and the Democratic National Committee had funded, via Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele’s creation of a series of memos relying largely on Russian government sources to make allegations against Donald Trump and his associates. A letter from the law firm Perkins Coie acknowledged that, ” [t]o assist in its representation of the DNC and Hillary for America, Perkins Coie engaged Fusion GPS in April of2016″ and that “the engagement concluded prior to the November 2016 Presidential election

the Committee has been investigating the FBI’ s relationship with Christopher Steele during this time his work was funded by Hillary for America and the DNC. The scope of our review includes the extent to which the FBI may have relied on information relayed by Mr. Steele in seeking judicial authorization for surveillance of individuals associated with Mr. Trump. It also includes whether any applications that may have been made for permission for such surveillance fully and accurately disclosed:

(1) the source of Fusion GPS’s and Mr. Steele’s funding;

(2) the degree to which his claims were or were not verified;

(3) the motivations of Mr. Steele, his clients, and his sources; and

( 4) representations about their contacts with the press.

 

 

The letter then goes on to list twelve questions – the last being a request for all communications between a list of 40 individuals or entities – including Christopher Steele, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Glenn Simpson and former CIA Director John Brennan. 

The six recipients of letters have two weeks to comply with the following requests (note; “Hillary for America” is replaced by “the DNC” depending on who the letter is addressed to): 

1. Prior to the Washington Post ‘s article in October of 2017, were you anyone else at Hillary for America aware of Mr. Steele’s efforts on behalf of the Clinton campaign to compile and distribute allegations about Mr. Trump and the Russian government? If so, when and how did you first learn of his activities on the campaign’s behalf? Please provide all related documents.

2. Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America receive copies of any of the memoranda comprising Mr. Steele’s dossier prior to its publication by Buzzfeed in January of 2017? If so, how and when? Please provide all related documents.

3. Regardless of whether you or your associates received copies of the actual memoranda, did you or anyone else at Hillary for America otherwise receive information contained in the dossier prior to Buzzfeed publishing the dossier in January of 2017? If so, how and when? Please provide all related documents.

4. Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America receive other memoranda written or forwarded by Mr. Steele regarding Mr. Trump and his associates that were not published as part of the Buzzfeed dossier? If so, how and when? Please provide all related documents.

5. Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America distribute outside of the organization any o f the dossier memoranda, information contained therein, or other information obtained by Mr. Steele? If so, please list who distributed the information, what was distributed, and to whom it was distributed. Please provide all related documents.

6. Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America communicate with any government officials – whether in the executive, legislative or judicial branches – regarding the dossier memoranda, information contained therein, or other information obtained by Mr. Steele? If so, please list the parties involved in the communication, the content of the communication, and the date and means of the communication. Please provide all related documents. References such as “anyone at Hillary for America” include all of Hillary for America’s officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, advisors, volunteers, and, of course, Secretary Clinton herself. Mr. Podesta January 25, 2018 

7. Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America instruct, request, suggest, or imply that any individuals should pass along information to Mr. Steele or his intermediaries? Please provide all related documents.

8. Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America communicate with members of the press regarding the dossier memoranda, information contained therein, or other information obtained by Mr. Steele? If so, please list the parties involved in the communication, the content of the communication, and the date and means of the communication. Please provide all related documents.

9. Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America inform Secretary Clinton of Mr. Steele’s efforts, whether by name or not, or of the allegations he was spreading? If so, who and when? Please provide all related documents.

10. Were you or anyone else at Hillary for America aware of Mr. Steele’s contacts with the FBI or other government agencies prior to the 2016 election? If so, who? When and how did you or they become aware? Please provide all related documents.

11. Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America encourage, whether directly or through intermediaries, Mr. Steele to initiate or continue contacts with the FBI or other government agencies? If so, who and when? Please provide all related documents.

12. For the period from March 2016 through January 2017, please provide all communications to, from, copying, or relating to: Fusion GPS; Bean LLC; Glenn Simpson; Mary Jacoby; Peter Fritsch; Tom Catan; Jason Felch; Neil King; David Michaels; Taylor Sears; Patrick Corcoran; Laura Sego; Jay Bagwell; Erica Castro; Nellie Ohr; Rinat Akhmetshin; Ed Lieberman; Edward Baumgartner; Orbis Business Intelligence Limited; Orbis Business International Limited; Walsingham Training Limited; Walsingham Partners Limited; Christopher Steele; Christopher Burrows; Sir Andrew Wood, Paul Hauser; 4 Oleg Deripaska; Cody Shearer; Sidney Blumenthal; Jon Winer; 5 Kathleen Kavalec; Victoria Nuland; Daniel Jones; 6 Bruce Ohr; Peter Strzok; Andrew McCabe; James Baker; 7 Sally Yates; Loretta Lynch; John Brennan.

Read More @ ZeroHedge.com

COPS NOW CHARGE BUSINESSES THOUSANDS TO PROVIDE THEM POLICE ‘PROTECTION’—JUST LIKE THE MAFIA

by Matt Agorist, The Daily Sheeple:

Detroit, MI — Everyone who’s ever watched a Hollywood mob film has seen the scenarios in which the mobsters offer “protection” to local businesses in exchange for money. The scheme is called a protection racket and is usually conducted by criminals. However, as a case in Detroit illustrates, police officers have recently gotten in on the game.

Sadek Kaid, who owns a Marathon gas station in northwest Detroit called police last month to report a crime in progress which was taking place inside his store. An irate customer, who was upset with the price of an item, lost it and began smashing up the store and throwing items off the shelves.

Kaid called 911.

Several minutes passed and Kaid never received a response, so, he hit redial and called back. Still, nothing.

The customer smashed up Kaid’s store for nearly an hour and police never showed up.

“The dispatcher said, ‘It’s because you don’t have the Green Light,’ ” Kaid said, according to Detroit News. “The customer was in here destroying the store, throwing everything off the shelves. He was here for almost an hour before he left. When the police finally came, they told us the Green Light locations get priority.”

Although police tout the ‘Project Green Light’ system as a means of preventing crime, in essence, it is merely a hi-tech version of the mafia’s protection racket with ominous police state undertones.

As the Detroit News reports, “businesses pay between $4,000 and $6,000 to join Project Green Light, a program that allows police to monitor businesses’ video surveillance feeds in real time. The cost covers installation of high-definition cameras and lighting. There also is a monthly fee of up to $150 for cloud-based video storage.”

For paying the cops the exorbitant fees to essentially let police spy on them 24/7, businesses get Priority 1 status on calls to 911. Now, the businesses who can’t afford to pay the m̶a̶f̶i̶a̶ police for protection are getting left out in the cold.

“It’s not fair,” said Abdo Nagi, owner of a 76 gas station on Grand River on Detroit’s west side that is not part of the program, according to the News. “We should all be equal. I pay high taxes already. Now I have to pay extra to get the police to come?

“Don’t get me wrong: If someone has a weapon and we call the police, they get here fast,” Nagi said. “But with other things, it takes a long time. There were kids in here beating up another kid last year, and by the time the cops got here, they were gone.”

According to Detroit News, Priority 1 runs are given precedence over other emergency calls, although Police Chief James Craig said Green Light runs don’t trump violent crimes. But per the agreement with the city, if there are simultaneous calls from two business owners reporting similar crimes, police prioritize calls from the Green Light locations.

On top of the mafia-esque tone of this program is the fact that business owners are essentially constructing their own police state—and they are paying for it.

Likely salivating over the idea of having cameras recording everything in the city, city officials are now considering making the Green Light Program mandatory. However, that won’t happen until at least next year, according to Mayor Mike Duggan.

Duggan says everyone loves the program and if you don’t like it you’re a criminal.

“The level of enthusiasm is so high,” he said. “Our resistance comes almost entirely from people who appear to have a relationship with the people up to no good in their parking lots.”

However, not all businesses can simply shell out thousands of dollars to the cops for protection and they aren’t criminals at all.

“It sounds like a great idea, but I just can’t afford it,” said Jesus Hernandez, owner of Abby’s Party Store. “If the city makes it mandatory, I’ll just have to close at 10. That won’t make a big difference during the week, but on the weekends I’ll lose money.”

Perhaps the Detroit police would do well to study the model of Dale Brown who owns and operates his own ‘private’ police force.

Read More @ TheDailySheeple.com

Source: Strzok Hadn’t Seen Evidence Of Collusion After 10 Months On Russia Probe

0

by Chuck Ross, Daily Caller:

After 10 months of leading the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, counterintelligence official Peter Strzok had not seen compelling evidence that President Trump or high-level campaign officials colluded with the Russian government, according to a person familiar with his thinking.

That account comports with a May 19, 2017 text exchange between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page that was released earlier this week.

“You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern that there’s no big there there,” Strzok wrote to Page, his mistress.

WATCH: Timeline Of The Mueller Investigation:

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, disclosed the “jaw-dropping” text earlier this week. He said that the message suggested that the FBI investigators had seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government. (RELATED: In ‘Jaw-Dropping’ Text Message, Strzok Expressed ‘Concern’ Over Mueller Probe)

It was unclear exactly what Strzok meant by the message, but the source close to Strzok affirmed that interpretation of the exchange to The Daily Caller.

The source spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

In the exchange with Page, Strzok was weighing whether to put in for a promotion at the FBI’s Washington Field Office or to go to work for Robert Mueller, the former FBI director who had been appointed special counsel two days before the text exchange.

If anyone had seen evidence of collusion by that point, it would have been Strzok. As deputy director for counterintelligence, he was picked to oversee the Russia investigation in July 2016, shortly after the release of the Democratic National Committee’s hacked emails.

One of Strzok’s tasks in the investigation was to conduct the Jan. 24, 2017, White House interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn. Flynn, a retired lieutenant general, has since pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during that interview about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.

Strzok believed early on in the investigation that Russia was behind the hack and release of Democrats’ emails. But he saw no compelling evidence that Trump, his family, or top officials in the campaign were involved in the email hacks, the source close to Strzok told TheDC.

As of May 2017, Strzok had not been persuaded that the investigation would be a major case, as it has been portrayed in the press. According to the source close to Strzok, he did not see evidence that the upper echelons of Trumpworld had committed a crime.

Additional information has emerged since Strzok’s text message, and it is not clear if it changed the investigator’s thinking about collusion.

In July, The New York Times reported on a previously-undisclosed June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians with some connections to the Kremlin.

Trump Jr. accepted that meeting after an acquaintance emailed him offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. The real estate executive was told that a Russian government attorney would provide the information, and he readily accepted the offer.

But Trump Jr. and the Russian attendees have denied that any information exchanged hands or that there was any follow-up to the meeting. It has been reported that Mueller’s team was not aware of the meeting until it was reported by the press.

Strzok would not have had much time to dig into that part of the investigation. That’s because he was removed from the Mueller team on July 27, after the Justice Department’s inspector general informed Mueller of Strzok and Page’s text messages.

Read More @ DailyCaller.com

As walls close in on FBI, the bureau lashes out at its antagonists

0

by Sharyll Attkisson, The Hill:

What happens when federal agencies accused of possible wrongdoing also control the alleged evidence against them? What happens when they’re the ones in charge of who inside their agencies — or connected to them — ultimately gets investigated and possibly charged?
 
Those questions are moving to the forefront as the facts play out in the investigations into our intelligence agencies’ surveillance activities.

There are two overarching issues.

First, there’s the alleged improper use of politically funded opposition research to justify secret warrants to spy on U.S. citizens for political purposes.

Second, if corruption is ultimately identified at high levels in our intel agencies, it would necessitate a re-examination of every case and issue the officials touched over the past decade — or two — under administrations of both parties.

This is why I think the concerns transcend typical party politics.

It touches everybody. It’s potentially monumental.

This week, the FBI said it was unfair for the House Intelligence Committee not to provide its memo outlining alleged FBI abuses. The committee wrote the summary memo after reviewing classified government documents in the Trump-Russia probe.

The FBI’s complaint carries a note of irony considering the agency has notoriously stonewalled Congress. Even when finally agreeing to provide requested documents, the Department of Justice uses the documents’ classified nature to severely restrict who can see them — even among members of Congress who possess the appropriate security clearance. Members who wish to view the documents must report to special locations during prescribed hours in the presence of Department of Justice minders who supervise them as they’re permitted to take handwritten notes only (you know, like the 1960s).

What most people don’t know is that the FBI and Department of Justice already know exactly what Congressional investigators have flagged in the documents they’ve reviewed, because three weeks ago the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its own summary memo to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The committee also referred to the Department of Justice a recommendation for possible charges against the author of the political opposition research file, the so-called Trump dossier: Christopher Steele.

The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Chuck Grassley (Iowa), co-authored the memo with fellow Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.). Grassley says it’s important for the public to see the unclassified portions of the memo. But unlike the House, which can release the memo on its own (and is taking steps to do so), Senate rules require permission from the Department of Justice — the possibly offending agency — to approve or declassify the memo. And that’s reached a snag.

According to Grassley, the FBI is blocking the release of the unclassified sections of the Senate memo by falsely claiming that they contain classified information.

“It sure looks like a bureaucratic game of hide the ball, rather than a genuine concern about national security,” said Grassley in a speech on the Senate floor yesterday.

Grassley also pointed out that agencies accused of possible improprieties are the ones controlling the information. It’s the FBI who may have misused the unverified “dossier” opposition research, allegedly presenting it to a secret court as if it were verified intelligence.

“[FBI] Director [James] Comey testified in 2017 that it was ‘salacious and unverified,’ ” Grassley said. “So, it was a collection of unverified opposition research funded by a political opponent in an election year. Would it be proper for the Obama administration — or any administration — to use something like that to authorize further investigation that intrudes on the privacy of people associated with its political opponents?

“That should bother civil libertarians of any political stripe.”

Democrats and many in the media are taking the side of the intelligence community, calling the Republican efforts partisan. House Democrats are said to be writing a counter-memo.

“We need to produce our own memo that lays out the actual facts and show how the majority memo distorts the work of the FBI and the Department of Justice,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the lead Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Read More @ TheHill.com

Papers Please: “Daily Citizenship Checks” on Buses Across Maine Highlight Constitution-Free Zone

by Joe Wright, Activist Post:

Still unknown to much of the U.S. population is the fact that they reside within a “Constitution-Free Zone,” as it has been dubbed by the ACLU for many years. In fact, it is estimated that 200 million people (2/3 of the populace) are likely to have their 4th Amendment protections completely disregarded by border patrol, as well as to encounter other routine violations unbecoming to a land of the free.

The entire state of Maine, for example, lies within a 100-mile region that extends inward from all borders of the nation as shown in the image below.

This reality appears to be crystallizing with more of Maine’s residents, as “daily citizenship checks” have begun to spread to buses across the state, according to a report from Maine Public:

The U.S. Border Patrol is running daily citizenship checks on buses traveling from Fort Kent toward the state’s interior and making periodic checks on buses originating in Bangor.

[…]

“Our purpose for boarding any conveyances, a bus specifically in this case, would be to question anybody – anybody – about their right to be or remain in the United States, whether they are an alien or not,” says Heibert (chief patrol officer). “That’s kind of the gist of it. We would have to have a reasonable suspicion to think that somebody isn’t a citizen to continue questioning.” (emphasis added)

This type of “fishing expedition” flies directly in the face of the 4th Amendment which guarantees that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Nevertheless, the Constitution-Free Zone, while not an official designation, has been upheld in principle by federal judges who the ACLU argue are reinforcing an outdated concept that was never given a mandate by the people. The ACLU itemizes this overlooked part of history on their website:

Outdated Legal Authority and Lack of Oversight

  • The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953—without any public comments or debate. At the time, there were fewer than 1,100 Border Patrol agents nationwide; today, there are over 21,000.
  • The Border Patrol often ignores this regulation and rejects any geographic limitation on agents’ authority. At least two federal circuit courts condone Border Patrol operations outside the 100-mile zone, federal regulations and Supreme Court precedent notwithstanding.
  • Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
  • For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in “roving patrol” stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.
  • The ACLU has documented numerous cases of abuse by Border Patrol and filed lawsuits to obtain more information about the agency’s practices. Given Border Patrol’s lack of transparency, and in the absence of any meaningful oversight, there is still much that we don’t know about the full extent and impact of these interior “border enforcement” operations.

As the video above introduces, the definition of “border patrol” no longer means dealing strictly with human agents. The deployment of drones, biometricsDNA collectionelectronics searches and even social media checks are spreading as well.

Read More @ ActivistPost.com