Department Of Counseling, Administration, Supervision &Amp: Fill & Download for Free

Here’s the kicker from The Hill’s reporting on the story:Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] members to the criminal activity they uncovered [prior to the approval of the Uranium One deal].Which is both really important and really breathtaking. As a refresher, here are the member agencies of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States:Department of the Treasury (chair)Department of JusticeDepartment of Homeland SecurityDepartment of CommerceDepartment of DefenseDepartment of StateDepartment of EnergyOffice of the U.S. Trade RepresentativeOffice of Science & Technology PolicyAccording to The Hill:[The] FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision [in October 2010] that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.So that means there were two entities on the Committee who ought to have been made aware of the FBI’s investigation - Justice and Energy - and, if the evidence in those investigations included connections to the Clintons, then the State Department also ought to have been made aware.If Justice, State, and Energy had raised concerns about the FBI’s discoveries at any of the Committee’s deliberations about Uranium One, then surely Homeland Security and Defense ought to have raised further concerns. Moreover, the Committee’s observing members include the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, both of which likely would have appreciated knowing that America’s uranium supply was being compromised by Russian racketeering.So if it’s true that the FBI didn’t brief any of the agencies’ officials with connections to the Committee’s deliberations about Uranium One about their investigation and findings to date, then that’s a huge misstep on their part.Thing is, this is kind of par for the course for the FBI, which is both praised and scorned for often keeping its investigations quiet (maybe too quiet?) in the name of due diligence and integrity. In this case, the FBI wasn’t even sharing information with itself:Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, told The Hill he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case by the counterintelligence side of the bureau despite the criminal charges that were being lodged.. . .Likewise, major congressional figures were also kept in the dark.Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.That’s probably the most significant implication: It challenges the FBI’s culture of not sharing its investigations with other, very relevant organs of government, up to and including its own people.And, of course, there’s this:The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. . . . The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein [who appointed Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia’s influence in the 2016 election].This could cut two ways.On the one hand, it boosts Mueller’s credibility in being able to investigate Russian racketeering - been there, done that, got his man.On the other hand, given the Clinton connection, it gives anybody who wants to smear his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign a reason to do so (ie, “He’s just covering up for the Clintons again!”).My guess, though, is that it’s pretty obvious how this story will play out. Obama/Clinton opponents will use it as further evidence of major corruption on their part, while Obama/Clinton defenders will say that Clinton wasn’t personally involved in the deal, and that there’s nothing in The Hill’s reporting to suggest anything more nefarious than a lack of information sharing.Congress may choose to investigate the matter further - perhaps the Senate Intelligence Committee will try to look into the matter as part of its investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 elections - but I’m guessing that they’ll deflect in order to (attempt to) make progress on their legislative agenda.Edit: They’re investigating.Related reading: Carter Moore's answer to Why are the Dems going after Trump’s ties to Russia and completely ignoring Hillary's selling them 30% of our nuclear grade uranium?

Trump supporters become very angry when they are called ignorant, but that is what they are when they complain that someone dares, especially someone on Fox Noise, no less, says that Barr is protecting Trump, and how dare they, since that’s what Trump wants from his AG.Both they and Trump are ignorant of the responsibilities of the AG, and that he took his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and not Trump. Let me educate you.To quote from Organization, Mission & Functions Manual: Attorney General, Deputy and Associate:OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALThe position of Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. In June 1870 Congress enacted a law entitled “An Act to Establish the Department of Justice.” This Act established the Attorney General as head of the Department of Justice and gave the Attorney General direction and control of U.S. Attorneys and all other counsel employed on behalf of the United States. The Act also vested in the Attorney General supervisory power over the accounts of U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.The mission of the Office of the Attorney General is to supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals Service, which are all within the Department of Justice.The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:Represent the United States in legal matters.Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.Nowhere in this mission statement does it say that the AG is Trump’s personal lawyer and as such, should provide his defense. Trump has Rudy Giuliani, among others, for that purpose.In fact, by politicizing his role, Barr has damaged the relationship he has with the public, who now see him as a political hack who cannot be trusted to seek true justice, regardless of where the chips may fall. Justice is supposed to be blind, but Barr appears to be peeking from behind the blindfold.

About two years ago, I made a report of abuse to the Department of Children and Families in Florida. On that day, a child that I knew well had told me that his daddy had given him a spanking the night before. Though I am not a proponent of spanking, I would have normally thought that while I disagreed with dad’s actions, it would not have been a big deal. After all, I was spanked and survived. But, my young friend continued his story telling me that Daddy said “next time he’ll kill me.” At this point, Dad is losing points in the parent game fast, but, I rationalized thinking that we all say things in anger. So, to my young friend, I replied, “Yeh, Daddy said that but he wouldn’t really do it.” As a side note to this, you may want to know that this conversation as I was driving the child to school through early morning traffic. The child’s response truly made it difficult for me to pay attention to the road -”Oh he would do it.” The child, then aged nine, truly believed this. The ‘spanking’ with a belt had taken place on a Sunday evening. I delivered my little passenger to school, spoke to the school’s administrator, and related the conversation to him. This dad and this child had been on his radar for some time. I then drove home and made, sobbing like a child the entire time, my report to DCF. As the day continued, I wondered what to do when it was time to take the child home. I called the child’s aunt, who was very aware of the problems in the home. She advised me that if I could hang on to my little friend until she get off work, I should then take him to her house.At this point, DCF had begun their investigation and had made the decision to remove all five children from the home. Though the agency working for DCF wanted the aunt to take all five children, she recognized that the two youngest would require more than she would be able to handle. The three oldest, ages 9, 10, and 11 were moved in with the aunt. The two youngest - a then 2 year old who had only been fed formula (because according to the mother he threw up anything else) and a then four year old who was not yet potty trained and was extremely hyper active were moved into foster homes. The aunt became a foster parent to the older three.In the months that followed, the older children had regularly scheduled visits with their father and their birth mother. And the father and the mother of the two youngest had visits with the younger two. The father did not see the little boy.In the course of their investigation, DCF found cause to file additional charges against the birth mother of the older three when a home visit showed problems with the treatment of her children with her current husband. The older three children had been removed from her home approximately four years earlier following a complaint by the children’s birth father (the same father who spanked the child in the beginning of this story). She had been allowed supervised visitation with the older three but agreed to terminate her parental rights as related to the older three.Both the father and the step mother of the older three were charged with neglect as related to the two younger children. But, upon investigation, the birth mother of the younger two was found to not be capable of assisting in her own defense nor providing a safe environment for those children. It was estimated that she had the mental capacity of a ten or eleven year old. She and their father agreed to terminate their parental rights as related to those two younger children. These two were placed for adoption and placed. The father of the three children was interviewed and counseled. He refused to accept any responsibility for his part in any of this. When the Department of Children and Families filed to terminate his parental rights, he appealed and lost. After living with the aunt for almost two years, two of the older children were placed in another foster home. The aunt had had a tumultuous relationship with DCF from the beginning when she refused to take on all five children. The youngest of these had begun to display behaviors that required more intensive intervention and he was placed in a facility where he is likely to get the treatment he so desperately needs. The older two may soon be adopted.And, for me, that person who made that phone call, I sometimes wonder if I should have or how the aunt feels about it. She says that it needed to be done. And, well, as a friend of mine has asked me often, ‘Could I have lived with myself had I not?’