'WANTED': Will Obama Be Jailed After He Leaves Office? $20,000 Bounty Offered For Evidence Of Obama Admin Agent Destroying Evidence

All News PipeLine

By Susan Duclos 

After promising that information is to be released in 2017 that will "blow you away," Wikileaks then offered a hint of what that information might actually include when they offered a $20,000 bounty, which they call a "reward for information leading to the arrest or exposure of any Obama admin agent destroying significant records," which leads us to believe they have information and are just looking for evidence to prove it, that could possibly lead to the arrest of not just Obama "agents," but perhaps all the way to the top, Barack Obama himself. 

How much damaging information regarding the inner workings of the Obama administration has Obama ordered destroyed once he knew it would be a Trump administration taking his place, rather than a more friendly Clinton administration?


It is a known fact that Obama fully expected a Clinton administration by his own admission that he didn't do more about the alleged "Russian hacking" before the election because he "thought Hillary was going to win," and only decided to sanction Russia after his carefully laid plans to have a "policy third-term" admin, via Hillary Clinton, succeed his administration.

As a side note, highlighted by our friend Andrew Malcolm over at McClatchy, when China was caught hacking into the Office of Management and Budget, where they "obtained all the personnel files, Social Security numbers, security concerns and clearances for 21.5 million current and former federal employees," Barack Obama did nothing, no sanctions, no "punishment," for hacking the U.S..

But wait! Nearly seven years into Obama’s reign and two months before the Ruskies hacked Democrats, the Chinese allegedly broke into the Office of Management and Budget. They got all the personnel files, Social Security numbers, security concerns and clearances for 21.5 million current and former federal employees.

How many Chinese did Obama expel? What other retaliation did he order? None, actually.

We might guess that Obama making an international stink over Chinese hacking would raise the question, of why after all of Obama’s warnings, security commissions and vows about the paramount importance of national security, this federal government’s cybersecurity remains a sieve.

What this shows is that Obama is using the office of the president in his last days to settle old grudges and to punish the American people after he put his "legacy on the ballot," and was repudiated by enough states to elect Donald Trump rather than Obama's preferred candidate.

While that can be put down to nothing more than petty vengeance on the part of Obama, which could hold deadly ramification, after all he is attacking another nuclear power, the destruction of records pertaining to the inner workings of his administration, could very well be an actionable crime, especially if those records affects national security.



We have already seen reports of Obama's timing in dismantling the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERs, announced after Trump's election, which was a registry of focused on immigrant men from Muslim countries, which we have seen were the perpetrators of all the latest terror attacks in the U.S. over the last years, including the Orlando massacre, the San Bernardino attack, the Minnesota mall  and Ohio University stabbing attacks.

In dismantling that program, despite it being suspended in 2011, does that mean the information contained in the program will be destroyed?

Other signs that Obama childish temper tantrums could be endangering America can be seen in other reports as well. For example, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is investigating "Obama's response," or lack there of, into the alleged Russian hacking issue, yet The Hill reports that "According to the committee, the administration has so far refused to provide witnesses for a public hearing."

Once again, no matter who was behind the leaks or hacks, Obama's refusal to cooperate in the oversight committee's investigation, endangers the American public, and if they are refusing to provide witnesses and are leaving the jumbled mess of a FBI/DHS report as their only "evidence," what are they doing with all the internal reports, the testimonies of agents that are on record disagreeing with the intelligence communities findings?

We have an outgoing administration that is refusing to turn over requested information to an incoming administration about employees that will be directly under the control of the new administration, falls directly under the "Federal Records" category, which is described by the Congressional Research Service, as: Pursuant to the Federal Records Act (FRA; Chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33 of Title 44 of the U.S. Code), federal agency records in all three branches are to be created, retained, preserved, and accessed differently than records that qualify as presidential records, records of Congress, or Supreme Court records.

Of particular concern for the 2016 transition is the updated definition of federal records, as amended by the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 (P.L. 113-187). The new definition of federal records reads as follows:

Records includes all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of the data in them.

According to the congressional reports to accompany P.L. 113-187, the amended definition of federal records seeks to "shift the emphasis away from the physical media used to store information to the actual information being stored, regardless of form or characteristic." Previously, the statutory definition of records included references to certain types of materials or platforms on which records could be created or captured, such as "books, papers, photographs” and “machine-readable formats." The amended definition, instead, refers more generically to "recorded information."

Federal agency staff will have to ensure that records that meet this new definition are appropriately captured and retained for as long as necessary, pursuant to law, regulation, and internal agency policies. The transition to a new President may not appear to directly affect the collection and retention of federal records at executive branch agencies because laws governing federal records, as defined above, are not contingent upon the start and end of presidential tenures. At the end of any presidential Administration, however, many political appointees in federal agencies will leave their positions. Upon their departure from federal service, these appointees will have to ensure that the federal records they have created are properly managed and preserved pursuant to the Federal Records Act

Those records, by law, are to be preserved, yet the Obama administration is refusing to turn them over to Trump, but if they still exist after Trump takes office on January 20, 2017, his administration should be able to obtain them at that time, so Obama's refusal would be nothing more than a delay... unless those records are destroyed before [T]trump takes office.

This is the reason the Wikileaks $20,000 bounty on information pertaining to any one in the Obama administration destroying any records, could lead to a slew of arrests, because until the 20th of January, Obama is responsible for the actions of each and every one of those agents because as Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk read "The buck stops here." The phrase refers to the notion that the President has to make the decisions and accept the ultimate responsibility for those decisions. (Source)



Barack Obama inaccurately assumed that Hillary Clinton was going to become the next President, as just as he didn't bother to do anything about the leaking of the DNC and the Clinton campaign emails, because he "thought she was going to win," He also wasn't in a hurry to "clean house" of any records that could lead to any charges being leveled against him, but once Trump was elected, it is quite possible a flurry of activity was noticed which Wikileaks was informed of, which would explain why they are promising  new revelations in 2017 will "blow us away," followed immediately by this $20,000 reward.

One has to wonder exactly what Wikileaks has been told for them to suddenly offer a reward for evidence of the destruction of records by any "Obama admin agent."

Popular Posts