Epstein Secrets

child of the CIA veteran who has run the agency's drone program for the past six years, a chain-smoking convert to Islam who goes by the code name "Roger." In a recent profile, The Washington Post called Roger "the principal architect of the CIA's drone campaign." When it comes to signature strikes,

Tube. According to U.S. authorities, he also communicated directly with two individuals who committed acts of terrorism, including Nidal Hasan, the U.S. Army officer accused of gunning down 13 people and wounding 32 others at Fort Hood in 2009, and Umar Farouk Abdulmuttallab, the so-called Underwear Bomb

quests pursuant to Department of Justice regulations (known as Touhy regulations). See Christenson DecL ¶ 50; see also United States ex reL Touhy v. Roger:, 340 U.S. 462 (1951); 28 C.F.R. § 16.21 et seq. As confidential communications between attorneys and a client for the purpose of obtaining and pro

782 F. Supp. 628 (D.D.C. 1991) 19 NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck, 421 U.S. 132 (1975) 13 North v. Walsh, 881 F.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1989) 8 Oglesby v. U.S. Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) 5 Pinson v. Dept of .htstice, 236 F. Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2017) 22 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2

quests pursuant to Department of Justice regulations (known as Touhy regulations). See Christenson DecL ¶ 50; see also United States ex reL Touhy v. Roger:, 340 U.S. 462 (1951); 28 C.F.R. § 16.21 et seq. As confidential communications between attorneys and a client for the purpose of obtaining and pro

782 F. Supp. 628 (D.D.C. 1991) 19 NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck, 421 U.S. 132 (1975) 13 North v. Walsh, 881 F.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1989) 8 Oglesby v. U.S. Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) 5 Pinson v. Dept of .htstice, 236 F. Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2017) 22 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2

quests pursuant to Department of Justice regulations (known as Touhy regulations). See Christenson DecL ¶ 50; see also United States ex reL Touhy v. Roger:, 340 U.S. 462 (1951); 28 C.F.R. § 16.21 et seq. As confidential communications between attorneys and a client for the purpose of obtaining and pro

782 F. Supp. 628 (D.D.C. 1991) 19 NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck, 421 U.S. 132 (1975) 13 North v. Walsh, 881 F.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1989) 8 Oglesby v. U.S. Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) 5 Pinson v. Dept of .htstice, 236 F. Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2017) 22 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2