It Begins: Florida Resident’s Firearms, Ammunition Confiscated Under Gun Control Law

Free Republic

The guns and ammunition of a 56-year-old Lighthouse Point, Florida, resident were confiscated by police in what is reportedly the first such seizure under gun control laws signed by Gov. Rick Scott (R) last week. The Orlando Sentinel reports that “four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition” were taken from the man, and he was “taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment.”

The seized firearms were listed as “a Ruger LCP .380 pistol, an M2 Mauser .45 pistol, a Charter Arms .357 mag snub nose revolver and a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun.”

The paper notes that “the civil ruling removing his access to guns and ammunition was granted under … new legislation — which permits confiscating guns from people who have not been committed but are deemed a potential risk to themselves or others, according to the order signed by Broward’s Chief Judge Jack Tuter.”

(Excerpt)

You’re Fired: Deputy FBI Director McCabe Axed Hours Before Retirement

It’s over. Former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe has been fired from the bureau. The announcement occurred a little after 10 P.M. The move comes around two days prior to McCabe receiving his hefty pension package. That is now in doubt, though The Washington Post said McCabe could file a lawsuit to receive full benefits. He spoke with FBI officials for four hours this week to ensure he wasn’t terminated before his pre-determined retirement. McCabe was forced out of his position at the FBI in January, but he wasn’t fired. He was put on something called “terminal leave,” where he remains employed at the FBI until his retirement that was set to be later this month. It would’ve allowed him to obtain that $1.8 million pension that was lined up (via WaPo):

Attorney General Jeff Sessions late Friday night fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, a little more than 24 hours before McCabe was set to retire.

Sessions announced the decision in a statement just before 10 p.m., noting that both the Justice Department Inspector General and the FBI office that handles discipline had found “that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions.”

He said based on those findings and the recommendation of the department’s senior career official, “I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately.”

The move will likely cost McCabe a significant portion of his retirement benefits, though it is possible he could bring a legal challenge. McCabe has been fighting vigorously to keep his job, and on Thursday, he spent nearly four hours inside the Justice Department pleading his case.

McCabe was cited for improperly disclosing the friction between the Department of Justice and the FBI over the investigation into the Clinton Foundation to The Wall Street Journal, and for misleading investigators when questioned about it in a DOJ inspector general report. Due to this revelation, the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommended his termination.

In a statement, Attorney Jeff Sessions explained why he decided to terminate McCabe effective immediately:

After an extensive and fair investigation and according to Department of Justice procedure, the Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provided its report on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

The FBI’s OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe.  Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor – including under oath – on multiple occasions.

The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability.  As the OPR proposal stated, “all FBI employees know that lacking candor under oath results in dismissal and that our integrity is our brand.”

Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the Department’s senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately.

UPDATE: McCabe says the Obama-appointed IG is singling him out.

UPDATE II: President Trump says McCabe firing is a “great day for democracy.”

Broward County Sheriff’s Office Training Materials Say First One or Two Officers on Scene should ‘Confront the Shooter’

See the source image

Image via



‘Remember, every time you hear a gunshot in an active shooter incident; you have to believe that is another victim being killed.’ 

Four Officers on Scene at February 14 Parkland Shooting Did Not Enter School Building 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released Broward County Sheriff’s Office training and operation materials that specifically dictate that the first one or two officers on the scene of an active shooter incident “will immediately go to confront the shooter.”

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office’s Standard Operating Procedure and lesson plans for an active shooter incident were obtained by Judicial Watch via a Florida Sunshine Act records request.

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office confirmed that armed school resource officer Deputy Scot Peterson was first on the scene of the February 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, but he did not enter the school to confront shooter Nikolas Cruz.

Three other deputies also arrived on the scene but did not enter, the sheriff’s office said. The Broward County materials direct that if four officers are on the scene of an active shooter incident they are to form a “Quad” formation and enter the building.

The lesson plan instructs officers to immediately confront a shooter:

Image via


History shows when a suspect is confronted by any armed individual (police, security, concealed carry person) they either shoot it out with that person or kill themselves. Either way, the shooting of innocent bystanders must stop. Now, the first officer or two officers on scene will immediately go to confront the shooter. Military tactics work well in this situation. The two man “bounding overwatch” is our response.

Using lessons learned from Columbine (the 1999 high school massacre where officers waited for a SWAT team and allowed two shooters to continue) the first four responding officers are directed to form a “Quad” and approach from all directions:

During Columbine, the response to an ongoing shooting situation was to contain the suspect. After Columbine the International Chiefs of Police addressed the problem with the response and came up with the “Quad” or diamond formation. With the quad, the first four officers to respond entered the building with coverage in all directions. This was critical to address the concerns of officers who previously would not enter and just wait for SWAT.

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said during a news conference that “What I saw was a deputy [Peterson] arrive … take up a position and he never went in.” Israel said Peterson should have “went in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer.”

The lesson plan clearly states: “If you are on scene or in the area and hear gunshots, you should immediately access what you have and prepare to respond. Remember, every time you hear a gunshot in an active shooter incident; you have to believe that is another victim being killed.”


The training materials also state that the first officers on the scene will “engage the suspect,” which Peterson did not do. “There are now three teams during Active Shooter Incident [Contact, Extraction and Rescue Task Force]: Contact Team: Is first on scene, 1-4 deputies, they will be actively engaging/searching for suspect (HOT ZONE).”

The lesson plan lists “priorities of life” as: 1) Hostages/victims; 2) Innocent Bystanders; 3) Police/deputies; and 4) Suspects. “If in doubt about going through the door after a suspect, think about the victims and where they stand on the list.”

The importance of a fast and effective response is emphasized: “Time is critical in each of these incidents. This is like no other crime. The motive is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. Why? Because the bad guy knows ‘we’ are coming.”

An exercise designed for a lone deputy on the scene of an active shooting is intended to “get the deputy moving towards the gunfire, passing dead students and others running by him.” However, “there is no reason to give up a good position of cover” if the shooting has stopped. “Remember the cavalry is on their way, so it’s better to hold, than to expose yourself to unknown threats.”

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office Standard Operating Procedure states: “If real time intelligence exists the sole deputy or a team of deputies may enter the area and/or structure to preserve life. A supervisor’s approval or on-site observation is not required for this decision…. If the situation turns to a barricade or hostage situation the response team will contain, isolate, communicate and wait for SWAT.”

Records obtained by Judicial Watch also show that Sheriff Israel is the second highest paid of Florida’s 67 sheriffs at $186,631 for Fiscal Year 2017/18. The sheriff was eligible for $2,000 in supplemental pay for completion of a 20-hour training course. In 2016, Israel received a warning letter that he had not successfully completed the course and his supplemental pay was being withheld.

“These Broward County Sheriff’s Office documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that the law enforcement agency failed the victims of the Parkland shooting,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Lives were lost in Parkland because the Sheriff’s Office personnel were either poorly trained or failed to follow training protocols.”

Why Won’t Barack Obama Go Away?

American Thinker

By Rich Logis


Why do those who criticize Donald Trump for not being a “traditional” president fawn over President Obama not being a “traditional” post-presidential citizen?

I would say Michelle and Barack Obama are back in the news, but they’ve never left the news since the 22nd Amendment mercifully exiled them from the Oval Office last year.  When President Clinton took the oath of office in 1992, President George H.W. Bush went away.  When President George W. Bush assumed power in 2000, President Clinton went away (until the prospect of being the first gentleman came a-knockin’).  When President Obama placed his hand on President Lincoln’s Bible in 2008, President Bush went away.

When President Trump made his miraculous win constitutionally official last year, President Obama went away, back to Chicago, to administer the death and destruction left in the wake of 30,000 consecutive days of Democrat rule over the Windy City.

Just kidding: Obama moved into a $5-million D.C. mansion – but only after the wall surrounding the 8,000-square-foot mansion was completely erected.  Oh, and Obama’s former senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, moved in with the Obamas, which is just bizarrely weird.  It’s like House of Cards meets Three’s Company; rumor has it that Val makes a mean Belgian waffle with an Iranian secret touch.


Obama the Hollywood star

The Obamas are in talks with Netflix to produce their own show, and let’s face it: that deal is as good as done.  I can already envision the episodes: “Louis Farrakhan: The Misunderstood Bigot,” “How to Community Organize and Eat Deep Dish Pizza at the Same Time,” “The Raúl Castro Interview, Part 2 (Raul Still Thinks America Sucks, and Who Am I to Disagree?).”

One episode I suspect won’t be produced is “Why I Will Remain the de Facto President for the Resistance for the Next Decade.”

There are very few political and policy decisions of Obama’s for which I give two thumbs up, but I will always marvel at how sophisticated his 2008 campaign was.  Obama knew with 100% certainty that he would be elected president after systematically delimbing the Clinton Industrial Complex.  But he didn’t want to merely defeat Arizona senator John McCain; he wanted to render him the Mondale of the Republican Party.  Obama didn’t win 49 states, but he won an election with a record turnout of percentage of registered voters.  A Christ-Gandhi ticket would have lost to Obama.

Obama was on nothing but offense, and his campaign understood well the nuances of the little things about campaigning.  His brain trust split data into micros of microdata – what people ate, when they went to bed and woke up, their voting history (or lack thereof)…seemingly everything.

Activist president, activist post-presidential citizen

Obama was our nation’s first overt activist president.  In fairness, all presidents are activists to some extent, but Obama perfected the art form.  Remember: his political upbringing was as an acolyte of  community organizer Saul Alinsky, rallying roach-smoking, Che Guevera t-shirt-wearing, vanilla chai green tea latte with organic unfiltered raw goat milk with turbinado sugar-drinking occupants of $4,000 monthly gentrified studio apartments while remonstrating against income inequality and too low taxes for wealthy white people (even though the vast majority of wealthy whites vote Democrat).

So are we to believe that Obama will not continue to carry his activist past into his post-presidential life?  Of course not.  Obama has always been smarter than most Democrat politicians; unlike Clinton, whose own husband doesn’t like her, Obama and the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) have had quite the love affair.  The love is so strong that it’s a borderline extramarital affair.

Obama knows that the Democrats have no one on deck to challenge President Trump in 2020, and we’ll likely have Trump and Mike Pence as president for 12-16 years.  (Republicans: Don’t you dare stay home on Election Day – red states no longer exist, and we cannot afford to lose the House of Representatives.)  Knowing that Trump and Pence will likely occupy the White House for nearly two decades, Obama has comfortably assumed the role of the face of the “resistance” and will have carte blanche from the DMIC and sycophantic Democrat voters to undermine President Trump ad infinitum.  Never mind the mountain of scandals accumulated in Obama’s 96 months as president, including an alleged spying scandal that’s shaping up to be an all-time Mother of All.

Democrats don’t care, just as they disdain our Constitution and Electoral College.  Democrats believe they have the right to be right, and they will beat you into submitting to their will.  No, Donald Trump isn’t a traditional president, but the American people don’t mind, just so long as President Trump keeps his promises (and kept promises he has).  Too bad Tessio Republicans in Congress can’t seem to support the president for consecutive days.

The “fundamental transformation”

Barack Obama promised a “fundamental transformation” when he took office in 2008, and he was true to his word.  When googly-eyed, Ludovico-induced Obamaites cheered “four more years!” at his farewell speech, Obama smilingly reminded them that our Constitution prohibits that.  Prior presidents always bid adieu to the nation from the Oval Office, but Obama broke tradition and, predictably, was praised by the oh, so devout DMIC.  Hell, even Canadians wanted another Obama term.  Does that qualify as collusion?

When Obama was elected, I did wonder what could be: a president who would take a flamethrower to the final remnants of the myth that America is still a racist nation; a president who would finally pick apart the self-victimization celebrity status culture the way he picked apart his opponents in elections; and a president who, as the West’s first black president, would never apologize for being the coach of the championship team.

But though I wondered what could be, I knew, deep down, that it wouldn’t be.  An activist never changes his act.

Obama couldn’t be president for life.  But he’ll never let you forget him.  No matter where you turn, in whatever direction, he’ll be there.

Senator Sasse (Among Others) Needs a History Lesson

Image via


Family Security Matters


U.S. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) has come out strongly against President Donald Trump’s decision to impose modest tariffs on imports of foreign steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) to aid these strategic domestic industries. On his website, the Senator calls this “kooky 18th century protectionism.” On Fox News, he declared that “two centuries” of tariffs had shown this to be a policy failure. Both of his statements are wrong. America became the world’s largest industrial power using tariffs to support lines of economic development in the face of rivals who were poised and eager to capture control of the U.S. market and keep Americans in the role of providing only food and raw materials to support advances elsewhere. Indeed, any analysis of the “comparative advantages” of the U.S. in the years after independence would have consigned the new nation to an economic dependence not much different than the colonial status it had fought to escape. But America broke out of its “assigned role” and took control of its own fate; and by the dawn of the 20th century was out producing Europe’s two major industrial powers, Great Britain and Germany, combined. This achievement changed the entire course of world history.

Even those who did not like the tone of this policy, such as the left-wing critic of nationalism, Max Beer, had to concede its success. He wrote in 1901, “The United States, with its ruthlessly protectionist trade policy, vast territory and endless energies, is proving the most powerful rival to England and Germany.” When Beer wrote, President Teddy Roosevelt was in office. In a letter to his friend Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA), TR had proclaimed “Thank God I’m not a free trader.” The Republican Party in its days of political dominance was the party of nationalism and protectionism. It had preserved the Union and was committed to building up its strength.

The origins of U.S. protectionism date back to the Founding Fathers. One of the seminal documents of American history is the “Report on Manufactures” written in 1791 by Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury in President George Washington­’s administration. He advocated a protective tariff, fearing that without import controls the southern states would turn to England and France for industrial goods rather than to the northern states. The lure of foreign trade with Europe could pull the Union apart. This nearly happened in the Civil War when the Confederacy turned to its overseas trading partners for military aid. The oligarchy of slave owners had no interest in industrializing the south and had always opposed tariffs. Their system was not just immoral, it was wrong-headed and doomed to stagnation and defeat.

The Constitution embodies Hamilton’s thinking. Article 1, section 8 gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States” while Section 10 takes these powers away from the States. These two provisions create a large, unified internal market that can support the growth of domestic production in the face of overseas competition. Trade is clearly made a matter of Federal (national) policy. This had been the dream of the 17th century mercantilist Jean-Baptiste Colbert for France, but he had been unable to overcome the resistance of provincial interests. It was the dream of Friedrich List, who fled to the U.S. because of his advocacy of a united Germany. List’s book The National System of Political Economy remains a classic and his ideas influenced Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay and James Madison, among others whom he met. But that large market was created to support domestic enterprise. As conservative historian Forrest McDonald has noted.

   While rejecting laissez-faire, however, Hamilton was emphatic in his commitment to private enterprise and the market economy. Primarily this commit­ment was moral, not economic. Hamilton believed that the greatest benefit of a system of government-encouraged private enterprise was spiritual—the enlargement of the scope of human freedom and the enrichment of the opportunities for human endeavor.

Hamilton’s plan was to create a system within which Americans could attain their own success; not merely sit on the sidelines as foreign entities made the key decisions affecting the future of the U.S. economy.

Thomas Jefferson at first opposed Hamilton’s trade and industrial policies. As an agrarian, Jefferson was quite content to let the factory system, which he equated with dirty smokestacks and urban slums, stay in Europe. Writing in 1785, Jefferson said “Were I to indulge in my own theory, I should wish [our states] to practice neither commerce nor navigation but to stand, with respect to Europe, precisely on the footing of China. We should avoid wars and all our citizens would be husbandmen.” Not a wise choice of comparison given that China would soon be carved into foreign spheres of influence by the more advanced industrial powers. Today’s People’s Republic of China is driven towards rapid industrialization and technological development to prevent ever again being subject to such a “century of humiliation.”

Jefferson as President attempted to implement several of the fashionable liberal notions about foreign affairs. He laid up most of the Navy, replacing blue-water warships with tiny coastal gunboats which he thought were less provocative. He reduced the diplomatic corps. This was in line with the views of his French friend and classical economist J.B. Say who claimed, “It is not necessary to have ambassadors. This is one of the ancient stupidit­ies which time will do away with.” They should be replaced by consuls whose function would be to promote free trade.

Those on the putative Right who are led astray by “free trade” rhetoric should remember it was part of a larger body of liberal ideology which saw private commerce as the remedy for interstate war. If individuals could forge ties without regard to borders or national allegiances, then there would be no more conflicts. As the British Radical Richard Cobden claimed, “the motive for large and mighty empires, for gigantic armies and great fleets would die away.” This was (and still is) the kooky notion that controls so much liberal thought. It leads to mistaken trade policy in the real world of contending states because, as List noted, it “has assumed as being actually in existence a state of things which has yet to come into existence….a universal union and a state of perpetual peace.” The last two centuries have made hash of liberal sophistry.

The War of 1812 woke Jefferson from this liberal fantasy. He shifted to the Hamiltonian camp and argued for a new industrial policy including tariffs. He wrote, “The prohibiting duties we lay on all articles of foreign manufacture which prudence requires us to establish at home, with the patriotic determination to use no foreign articles which can be made within ourselves without regard to difference in price, secure us against a relapse into foreign dependency.”

The Hamiltonian program became the party line of the Whigs before the Civil War and the Republican Party afterwards. “By the election of 1880 protectionism virtually equaled Republican­ism” states historian Tom E. Terrill in his book The Tariff, Politics and American Foreign Policy 1874-1901. President Trump has quoted President Abraham Lincoln’s warning, “abandonment of the protective policy by the American government [will] produce want and ruin among our people.” Anyone who has seen the empty factories and blighted communities in a Middle America plundered by the “outsourcing” of production overseas has seen the proof that Lincoln was right.

As historian Paul Kennedy has argued, “How a Great Power’s position steadily alters in peacetime is as important to this study as how it fights in wartime.” During the post-Cold War euphoria of “free trade” the U.S. position was altered in a negative way; running huge trade deficits ($796 billion last year) that measured the extent that net production capacity had shifted overseas. The reason for the shift was the rise of transnational corporations looking for cheap foreign labor to replace “expensive” American workers who expected fair treatment. This united Big Business with the ghosts of the southern slave owners in the embrace of “free trade”— hardly a laudatory motive.

In contrast, proper government policy should seek to shape the flow of economic factors, including trade, with an eye to increasing the productive capacity of the nation, particularly in strategic industries. Protectionism is a central part of a proper trade policy. For example, Century Aluminum, the main domestic producer of high-purity aluminum used in military aircraft, will restart idled production lines at its smelter in eastern Kentucky in response to Trump’s tariffs. It had closed most of its operation because of import competition from China and Russia. Does anyone really want our aerospace industry to be dependent on imports from these rival foreign powers? The philosophy of “free trade” just doesn’t cut it in the real world. The United States must manage its own fate, and it can only do so from a position of economic strength; meaning resources, technology and industry under its own control.

FBI McCabe, Will Sessions Fire Him Stopping His Retirement?

Founders Code

Wonder if Hillary is available for comment…

McCabe is a civil service employee who can’t be fired without evidence of wrongdoing.

When it became public in January the McCabe had decided to step aside, FBI Director Chris Wray made it clear in a message to all bureau employees at that time that his departure was tied to the inspector general report.

Several sources familiar with McCabe’s move told NBC News that he made his decision to retire as a result of a meeting with Wray in which the inspector general’s investigation was discussed.

BI: Attorney General Jeff Sessions is reviewing a recommendation from the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility to fire former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testifies before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington Thomson Reuters

McCabe was forced out of the FBI earlier this year amid an internal investigation by the Office of Inspector General into his approval of unauthorized disclosures to the media in October 2016 about the bureau’s Hillary Clinton email investigation.

He’s scheduled to retire on Sunday, and a possible firing — which sources told The Times could could as soon as Friday — could endanger his pension benefits.

The Department of Justice’s inspector general Michael Horowitz reportedly concluded in a report that McCabe was not forthcoming during the OIG review. The FBI office subsequently recommended that Sessions fire McCabe, according to The Times.

The Wall Street Journal article at the center of the OIG’s inquiry was published on October 30, 2016, two days after then-FBI director James Comey announced in a letter to Congress that the bureau was reopening its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct government business when she was secretary of state.

The article was a highly detailed account of internal strife within the top ranks of the DOJ about how to proceed after FBI agents investigating former New York congressman Anthony Weiner discovered 650,000 emails on his laptop that could have been sent to or from Clinton’s private email server. Many of the emails came from accounts belonging to Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, who was also Clinton’s longtime aide and a senior adviser to her campaign, The Journal reported.

At the same time, DOJ anticorruption prosecutors were at odds with FBI officials over whether to continue pursuing a separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation’s financial dealings.

While DOJ officials believed there wasn’t enough evidence to move forward with the probe and wouldn’t authorize further investigatory measures, FBI officials, including McCabe, believed they had the authority to continue the investigation using whatever leads they had already acquired, the report said.

Justice Department rules prevent investigators from taking significant actions that could be seen as trying to influence an election. And when a senior DOJ official called McCabe in August 2016 to express his disapproval with the FBI’s continued focus on the Clinton Foundation probe amid the heated election season, McCabe reportedly pushed back.

“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” McCabe said, according to The Journal.

The official replied, after a brief pause: “Of course not.”

The reporter who authored the Journal’s article, Devlin Barrett, was in touch with two top FBI officials on the phone two days before the story broke, according to text messages released in February. The officials were FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who often worked with McCabe, and then-FBI spokesman Michael Kortan.

While law-enforcement officials often speak to the press on background in order to provide more complete details about an ongoing story, they are prohibited from revealing information about ongoing investigations, like the Clinton emails and Clinton Foundation probes.

McCabe stepped down as deputy director in January after FBI director Christopher Wray briefed him about the impending OIG report about his conduct.

The deputy director’s ouster came following a string of public attacks President Donald Trump leveled against him, accusing him of putting his thumb on the scale in favor of Clinton.

Trump’s attacks were based on information contained in a separate Wall Street Journal article published one week before Barrett’s.

McCabe’s wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, mounted an unsuccessful run for a Virginia state Senate seat in 2015. The Journal reported on October 24, 2016 that her campaign received $675,000 in donations from the Virginia Democratic Party and from Common Good VA, the super PAC run by Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton supporter. None of the donations came from Clinton or her family.

Trump latched onto the revelations, accusing McCabe of corruption and anti-Trump bias based on his wife’s political campaign.

McCabe wasn’t in charge of the Clinton investigation at the time, and didn’t take on an “oversight role” in the probe until February 2016, long after his wife lost her election bid.

The FBI also released a trove of internal emails

and documents in January that confirmed McCabe was not warned against becoming involved in the Clinton investigation. But he recused himself anyway following The Journal’s report about his wife’s campaign.

Most notably, the upcoming OIG report detailed by The Times stands in contrast to Trump’s assertion, given its focus on McCabe’s authorization of disclosures that ultimately resulted in a negative story about Clinton.