Categories
Saved Web Pages

Opposing unsealing of FBI affidavit, DoJ signals expanding state secrets investigation of Trump

8ccb2fdb-223e-4d8a-ba2a-e95ab87c0588?ren

Amid escalating demands by Republican lawmakers for the release of all documents relating to the August 8 FBI raid on Donald Trump’s Florida compound, the Department of Justice (DoJ) on Monday opposed the unsealing of the affidavit that was used to obtain the warrant sanctioning the seizure of classified documents held illegally by the ex-president.

The thirteen-page brief was filed in US District Court by US Attorney Juan Gonzalez and Jay Bratt, chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the National Security Division of the Justice Department. It made clear that Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Justice Department are proceeding aggressively in their criminal investigation of Trump’s violations of long-standing and rigorously-enforced rules and procedures safeguarding state secrets.

The government’s filing underscored the unprecedented character of the crisis of the American political system, which shows no signs of abating.

The government’s brief was filed in response to requests from newspapers and media outlets that District Judge Bruce Reinhart unseal the affidavit, the detailed presentation of evidence submitted by the FBI to substantiate the assertion of probable cause to prosecute Trump for violating federal statutes, including the Espionage Act.

It is highly unusual for an affidavit to be unsealed before an indictment laying out criminal charges has been issued, as in the current investigation of Trump.

The DoJ argued that unsealing the affidavit at this stage would jeopardize its investigation. It wrote: “There remain compelling reasons, including to protect the integrity of an ongoing law enforcement investigation that implicates national security, that support keeping the affidavit sealed.”

The brief listed aspects of the investigation detailed in the affidavit that would be compromised, including “highly sensitive information about witnesses, including witnesses interviewed by the government; specific investigative techniques; and information required by law to be kept under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure.”

It continued: “If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a roadmap to the government’s ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a manner that is highly likely to compromise further investigative steps. In addition, information about witnesses is particularly sensitive given the high-profile nature of this matter and the risk that the revelation of witness identities would impact their willingness to cooperate with the investigation.”

It attached a footnote, stating: “This is not merely a hypothetical concern, given the widely reported threats made against law enforcement personnel in the wake of the August 8 search.” The footnote cited last Thursday’s attack on an FBI field office in Cincinnati by an armed pro-Trump gunman and various press reports of threats from Trump supporters.

It argued further that disclosure of the affidavit would “chill future cooperation by witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses, as well as in other high-profile investigations.” The phrase about “other investigations” was an oblique but pointed reference to the ongoing DoJ investigation of Trump’s January 6 coup conspiracy to overthrow the 2020 elections and seize dictatorial power.

Late Monday, Trump posted a demand on his social media platform for the release of the affidavit “in the interest of TRANSPARENCY.” He wrote: “I call for the immediate release of the completely Unredacted Affidavit pertaining to this horrible and shocking BREAK-IN.”

As the World Socialist Web Site explained in “Trump, state secrets and the crisis of the American state,” there is a stark contrast between the aggressiveness with which the Justice Department and the Biden administration have moved on the question of state secrets and national security, which raises no issues of basic democratic rights, and their timid and ambivalent approach to investigating the first attempt in US history to overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship. The decision to pursue Trump on the issue of state secrets reflects the basic orientation of Biden and the Democrats, centered on escalating the confrontation with Russia and China.

The WSWS wrote:

However, these events expose what the real priorities of the ruling class are. The state cannot tolerate Trump’s disruption of its war effort. The Democrats’ appeal is to the military and repressive state apparatus, as it has been since Trump’s election. Biden’s strategy has always been to appeal to military brass and to “save” his “colleagues” in the Republican Party through an alliance based on imperialist bellicosity and “bipartisanship…

Its primary aim is to forge ruling class unity to prosecute the war and crush opposition from below, with no surprises from the unpredictable Trump.

This analysis was rapidly confirmed by an editorial posted Monday by the New York Times, the most prominent media mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. Addressing Tuesday’s Republican primary elections in Wyoming and Alaska, where two of the few Republican critics of Trump and January 6, Liz Cheney and Lisa Murkowski, respectively, are facing challenges from Trump-endorsed election deniers, the newspaper lauded the two right-wing war hawks as models of “political bravery.”

The Times called Cheney, who voted with Trump nearly 93 percent of the time and whose father, Dick Cheney, is one of the main war criminals in the near-genocidal invasion and occupation of Iraq, a “consistent conservative.”

The editorial went on praise Mitt Romney for casting the sole Republican vote to convict Trump in the Senate trial following the Democrats’ first impeachment of Trump. That impeachment was over Trump’s temporary suspension of military aid to the right-wing puppet government in Ukraine, which interrupted preparations for the current US/NATO war against Russia.

The Times did not fail, moreover, to include the late war-mongering Senator John McCain in its honor roll of “profiles in courage.”

This is why, in the struggle against Trump and his fascist allies, the working class can give no support to Biden and the Democratic Party, and must instead expand its class struggle and consciously direct it against the source of war, social inequality, mass death from pandemics and the threat of dictatorship—the capitalist system.

Categories
Saved Web Pages

Trump Faces Questions About His Net Worth in Interview He Tried to Avoid

merlin_184403649_85ae2cc5-8fdd-437b-b9a5

Former President Donald J. Trump has embraced the verbal sparring of legal depositions in the past, but now faces significant risk.

  • Send any friend a story

    As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.

Donald J. Trump has been deposed many times in a variety of settings, but the stakes of his scheduled session with the New York attorney general’s office are uncommonly high.

Donald J. Trump has been deposed many times in a variety of settings, but the stakes of his scheduled session with the New York attorney general’s office are uncommonly high.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times

For decades, Donald J. Trump has boasted with impunity about a subject close to his heart and ego: his net worth.

“I look better if I’m worth $10 billion than if I’m worth $4 billion,” he once said when disputing his ranking on the Forbes billionaires list. In a court case, he acknowledged that when it came to describing the value of his brand, “I’m as accurate as I think I can be.” And when he described his self-aggrandizing style in his book, “The Art of the Deal,” he chose a phrase that has followed him ever since: “truthful hyperbole.”’

But now, Mr. Trump will face questions under oath about that pattern of embellishment in an investigation that may shape the future of his family real estate business. The former president and his eldest daughter, Ivanka Trump, are expected to be questioned later this month by the New York State attorney general’s office, which has been conducting a civil investigation into whether he and his company fraudulently inflated the value of his assets. His son, Donald Trump Jr., was interviewed last week, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The attorney general, Letitia James, has argued in court papers that “fraudulent or misleading” business practices reigned at the Trump Organization for years, and has said her investigators must question the Trumps to determine who was responsible. Mr. Trump fought hard to avoid an interview, but a judge ordered him to face questioning, and investigators will seek to elicit answers that might reveal whether he approved any bogus valuations of his hotels, golf clubs and other assets.

Even a single misstep in the deposition could be costly for Mr. Trump, who is also the focus of a separate criminal investigation into the same issues. Although that investigation by the Manhattan district attorney’s office lost momentum early this year, prosecutors are planning to review Mr. Trump’s answers and any incriminating statements or clumsy comments could breathe new life into it.

Mr. Trump has derided Ms. James’s inquiry as a politically-motivated “witch hunt” and denied all wrongdoing.

The former president, who is no stranger to being deposed, will present unusual challenges and opportunities for Ms. James’s lawyers, according to accounts from people who have questioned him under oath in the past and a review of nearly a dozen depositions. He is quick to spar with his inquisitors and often struggles to restrain himself, once telling a lawyer that her questions were “very stupid.”

Letitia James, the New York attorney general, has been aggressive in pursuing a case against Mr. Trump and his family business.Credit…Todd Heisler/The New York Times

The interviews will mark the final stage of Ms. James’s three-year civil inquiry, teeing up one of the most consequential decisions of her tenure: whether to sue Mr. Trump and his company. Ms. James, facing the likelihood that a lawsuit would bring several more years of legal wrangling without victory assured, could first pursue settlement negotiations with the former president’s lawyers to extract a swifter financial payout.

If Ms. James does bring a lawsuit, and Mr. Trump loses at trial, a judge could impose steeper financial penalties on the former president and even restrict his business operations in New York, all in the midst of a 2024 presidential campaign that he has long hinted he will join.

Ms. James, a Democrat running for re-election, has assumed the role of Mr. Trump’s chief antagonist in New York. And in recent months, she has adopted an unusually aggressive legal strategy — including persuading a judge, Arthur F. Engoron, to hold the former president in contempt of court — as she battled to obtain his documents and testimony.

The depositions, while a victory for Ms. James, might not deliver a smoking gun. Mr. Trump could assert that he delegated the valuation of his assets to employees, and that he was not deeply involved, or he could invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination, declining to answer at least some questions.

Card 1 of 7

An empire under scrutiny. Letitia James, the New York State attorney general, is currently conducting a civil investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s business practices. Here’s what to know:

The origins of the inquiry. The investigation started after Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, testified to Congress that Mr. Trump and his employees had manipulated his net worth to suit his interests.

Contempt ruling. A judge held Mr. Trump in contempt of court for failing to turn over documents to Ms. James, ordering him to provide the records and be fined $10,000 per day until he did so. Two weeks later, the judge withdrew the judicial order on the condition Mr. Trump paid the $110,000 fine he had accumulated over that period.

But people familiar with Mr. Trump’s approach to legal battles expressed doubt that he would keep quiet. Unlike in criminal cases, a jury in civil cases like the one Ms. James might bring can draw a negative inference from a defendant’s refusal to answer questions. And if Mr. Trump relies on his Fifth Amendment privilege — as his son Eric Trump did hundreds of times in an interview with Ms. James’s office two years ago — that could raise questions about what he might be seeking to hide and provide fresh fodder for his political opponents.

Mr. Trump himself has ridiculed witnesses for invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, once remarking that “You see the Mob takes the Fifth,” and that, “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”

Ms. James’s inquiry centers on whether Mr. Trump’s annual financial statements were a work of fiction — a vehicle for exaggerating the value of his real estate so that he could secure favorable loans and other financial benefits. Ms. James, who has said that Mr. Trump “got caught” using “funny numbers in his financial documents,” is examining whether Mr. Trump and his company used inflated valuations to mislead banks and the Internal Revenue Service.

In challenging Ms. James, Mr. Trump’s legal team would be likely to argue that he was entitled to some leeway in valuing his real estate, a process that is widely viewed as more art than science. Mr. Trump’s financial statements contained disclaimers that the value of his properties had not been audited or authenticated.

What we consider before using anonymous sources.
How do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even with these questions satisfied, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers might also argue that the banks that received his financial statements were hardly victims; these lenders made millions of dollars from their dealings with Mr. Trump, who recently paid off some of his largest loans.

Any lawsuit Ms. James might bring could have some holes as well: Mr. Trump famously does not use email, so any directions he might have given his employees about drafting the financial statements were probably not in writing.

Mr. Trump is no novice when it comes to facing questions under oath, having navigated numerous depositions in private lawsuits throughout his half-century in the public spotlight. When asked in 2012 how many depositions he had participated in, Mr. Trump, perhaps hyperbolically, put the number at “over 100.”

Yet the stakes are higher this time, with Mr. Trump facing scrutiny not from private lawyers but government investigators, a relatively rare occurrence for the former president. While Mr. Trump responded to questions from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, he did so only in writing.

And unlike Mr. Mueller, who did not examine Mr. Trump’s personal finances, Ms. James’s lawyers have spent three years investigating the minutiae of his company’s operations.

If past depositions are any guide, Mr. Trump will be likely to strike a combative tone with Ms. James’s lawyers while portraying himself as the unwitting victim of a vindictive legal opponent. He might also lob the occasional insult at his interviewers. (In a 2011 deposition, he called a female lawyer “disgusting” after she requested a break to pump breast milk for her daughter and displayed the pump to illustrate her point.)

That apparent lack of discipline could work to Ms. James’s advantage, lawyers who have deposed him said. Mr. Trump thinks of himself as his own best advocate and might ignore advice from his attorneys to avoid directly answering questions.

“He’s completely fearless in a deposition,” said Jason A. Forge, who represented the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Mr. Trump’s for-profit education venture, Trump University, and questioned him under oath. “He’s way more engaged than a normal witness, and you can tell he enjoys the challenge and revels in the verbal sparring,” said Mr. Forge, who predicted that there was “no way” he’ll refuse to answer questions.

In short, he added, Mr. Trump was “the dream deponent.” The lawsuit ended in a settlement.

Mr. Trump’s willingness to talk arguably hurt him in a 2007 deposition for a lawsuit that also centered on the value of his assets.

In that case, Mr. Trump had sued the journalist Timothy L. O’Brien for writing a book that cast doubt on the size of his net worth, but in the deposition, Mr. O’Brien’s lawyer coaxed out a series of admissions from Mr. Trump, who acknowledged: “Even my own feelings affects my value to myself,” and said that his net worth “can vary actually from day to day,” and that he determined it by gauging “my general attitude at the time.” He then added, “And as I say, it varies.”

“Have you ever exaggerated in statements about your properties?” Mr. O’Brien’s lawyer asked him.

“I think everyone does,” Mr. Trump replied.

A judge ultimately dismissed Mr. Trump’s lawsuit.

The former president will have an added incentive to avoid candidly answering Ms. James’s questions: the lingering criminal investigation into the very same conduct. That inquiry faded from view early this year after the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, declined to indict Mr. Trump.

Mr. Bragg, who could utilize Mr. Trump’s statements in the civil deposition as evidence against him in a potential criminal case, has already said that he intends to take careful stock of Mr. Trump’s answers.

Donald Trump Jr. was interviewed last week and Ivanka Trump is scheduled to face questioning in the days ahead.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times

In the depositions, Ms. James’s investigators are likely to home in on Mr. Trump’s involvement in his annual financial statements. Mr. Trump, who is synonymous with the Trump Organization, had authority over all its operations, and through questioning, investigators will try to deduce a connection between his actions and the “misstatements and omissions” that lawyers for Ms. James told Justice Engoron that they had found in the documents.

Her lawyers have also identified instances in which his two adult children made use of the documents: Ms. Trump submitted them to Deutsche Bank, the company’s largest lender, and Donald Trump Jr. issued financial statements related to the assets in his father’s trust. Their depositions will be likely to explore their roles at the company and their knowledge of the financial statements.

Ms. James’s investigators also are likely to press Mr. Trump about his relationship with his longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, which compiled his annual financial statements. In February, Ms. James revealed that Mazars had cut ties with Mr. Trump.

A lawyer for Ms. James, Kevin Wallace, explained at a court hearing this spring why the investigation had taken so long, telling a judge that although the Trump Organization’s assets are as snarled and impenetrable as “a Russian nesting doll,” the attorney general’s office had managed to obtain “a very complete record.”

Categories
Saved Web Pages

Henry Idema: Is Trump a Russian asset?

ghows-MI-210139909-580210bc.jpg?auto=web

There is much we do not know about Donald Trump’s connections to Putin and Russia.  But we do know these facts:

  1. Trump wanted to build a hotel in Moscow. He asked Russia before the 2016 election to release any emails of Hillary Clinton’s that they had in their hands.
  2. Putin and Russia used social media to divide Americans, especially over the issue of race, before the 2016 election.
  3. Putin wanted Trump to win the elections in 2016 and 2020. Putin obviously failed in 2020, as Trump lost by over 7 million votes. Trump also lost by 3 million to Hillary Clinton in 2016, but won the election due to the Electoral College, which makes it possible for minority candidates to win national presidential elections.
  4. Trump has to this day not criticized Putin for his oppression of his own people, the suppression of Russian media, or his invasion of Ukraine and the war crimes committed by Russian soldiers.
  5. Members of Trump’s family, and campaign staff had meetings with Russians before the 2016 election, with no record of what transpired. After Trump became president, he welcomed Russian governmental officials into the Oval Office, and there is no written record of what was said.
  6. Trump and Putin had a long private meeting in Helsinki and there is no written record of the content of their discussion.

I am not arguing that knowingly Trump was or is a Russian asset. My argument is that he is, for sure, unknowingly a Russian asset. And by that I mean that Trump is carrying out what Putin wants to see happen in America: A deeply divided country where Americans are at each other’s throats. 

Our divisions make us weaker. Trump had little use for NATO, and weakened the alliance, which of course delighted Putin. Trump’s unwillingness to sell weapons to  Ukraine unless the government dug up dirt on Hunter Biden also made Putin very happy. No doubt Putin was cooking up his invasion of Ukraine  even back then, having already gobbled up Crimea in 2014.

All of this — and much more could be said — makes Trump a potential threat to national security. Thus, when the Justice Department found out that Trump still had boxes of potentially top secret documents in his residence in Florida, there was an urgency to get them removed and secured.

We do not know if those retrieved documents contain secrets about nuclear weapons, ours or those of other nations. But does anybody think it would have been a good idea to leave these boxes of documents in a private residence, a club at that, with many people coming and going? I am sure the Chinese and Russians have agents capable of getting their hands on those documents, and wanted to do so.

The true story of Trump and Putin’s connections may never be known, but there is something fishy about the whole thing. How much Russian money filtered through the Trump business organization, even laundered, is also unknown. We know for sure that Russians did buy real estate holdings from Trump, which is not a crime but shows another connection between Trump and Russia.

It is difficult for me to believe that Trump would knowingly betray his country. However, what sticks in my throat is the 187 minutes on Jan. 6 when Trump sat in his dining room off of the Oval Office and took no action to stop the insurrection at the Capitol when the police were being beaten and Congress was being threatened and Vice President Pence was being threatened with a hangman’s noose. Trump’s inaction has no excuse and I have not heard any, even on FOX News. Republicans also are silent on this one issue.

If Trump could betray his oath of office and his oath to our Constitution on Jan. 6, is it any surprise that the Justice Department might have had fears that Trump might betray his country once again with classified documents that had no reason to be taken from Washington to Florida? I am not saying that Trump would have done this, but can’t we all agree that these documents in a locked room in a private residence might have been a tempting target for foreign agents? Can’t we all agree, for once, that these documents needed to retrieved? Can’t we all agree that those 187 minutes on Jan. 6 when Trump did nothing to stop a coup, raises serious questions about this man’s character and his loyalties?

— Henry Idema lives in Grand Haven. He can be reached at henryidema3@yahoo.com. 

Categories
Saved Web Pages

Majority of Americans Now See FBI as ‘Joe Biden’s Personal Gestapo’

A majority of 53 percent of Americans now see the FBI for what it really is: Joe Biden’s personal Gestapo.

This is according to the latest polling of Rasmussen Reports, which found only bad news for America’s fascist FBI:

Rasmussen Reports finds that 44% of Likely U.S. voters say the FBI raid on Trump’s Florida home made them trust the FBI less, compared to 29% who say it made them trust the bureau more. Twenty-three percent (23%) say the Trump raid did not make much difference in their trust of the FBI. …

Fifty percent (50%) of voters have a favorable impression of the FBI, including 26% who have a Very Favorable view of the bureau. Forty-six percent (46%) now view the FBI unfavorably, including 29% who have a Very Unfavorable impression of the bureau.

Roger Stone, an adviser to former President Donald Trump, has said there is “a group of politicized thugs at the top of the FBI who are using the FBI … as Joe Biden‘s personal Gestapo.” A majority (53%) of voters now agree with Stone’s statement – up from 46% in December – including 34% who Strongly Agree. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree with the quote from Stone, including 26% who Strongly Disagree.

via joemiller

gettricon.png meweicon.png tlglogotype.png twittlogotype.png

Categories
Saved Web Pages

Opinion | Twitter Becomes a Tool of Government Censorship

social

Illustration: David Gothard

Alex Berenson is back on Twitter after being banned for nearly a year over Covid-19 “misinformation.” Last week the former New York Times reporter settled his lawsuit against the social-media company, which admitted error and restored his account. “The First Amendment does not apply to private companies like Twitter,” Mr. Berenson wrote last week on Substack. But because the Biden administration brought pressure to bear on Twitter, he believes he has a case that his constitutional rights were violated. He’s right.

In January 2021 we argued on these pages that tech companies should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines when they censor constitutionally protected speech in response to governmental threats and inducements. The Biden administration appears to have taken our warning calls as a how-to guide for effectuating political censorship through the private sector. And it’s worse than we feared.

Facts that Mr. Berenson unearthed through the discovery process confirm that the administration has been secretly asking social-media companies to shut down the accounts of specific prominent critics of administration policy.

On July 16, 2021, a reporter asked President Biden: “On Covid misinformation, what’s your message to platforms like Facebook. ” Mr. Biden replied: “They’re killing people.” (The president later said he meant users were killing people.) Later that day, Twitter locked Mr. Berenson’s account, and on Aug. 28 it banned him permanently.

Last Friday Mr. Berenson published conversations from an internal Twitter Slack channel. Referring to an April 2021 meeting with White House officials, one Twitter employee noted that the meeting overall was “pretty good,” but added that the White House “had one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform.”

Another employee asked: “Any high level takeaways from the meeting? Anything we should keep an eye out for?”

The first employee responded: “Yes, they really wanted to know about Alex Berenson.” The employee wrote that Andy Slavitt, then a senior White House Covid adviser, “suggested they had seen data viz that had showed he was the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public.” (“Viz” probably stands for “visualization” and “disinfo” for “disinformation.”)

Mr. Berenson wasn’t the only target. At a July 15, 2021, White House press briefing with Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, press secretary Jen Psaki said: “We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. . . . There’s about 12 people who are producing 65% of antivaccine misinformation on social media platforms.” This was a reference to the so-called “Disinformation Dozen,” 12 named individuals identified in a report by the U.K.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate—a report that Facebook disputed even as it said it had taken action against its targets. Ms. Psaki went on to say of the 12 that “all of them remain active on Facebook, despite some even being banned on other platforms, including . . . ones that Facebook owns.” That might have been a reference to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , a longtime critic of vaccination, who had been deplatformed by Facebook-owned Instagram.

At the same briefing, Dr. Murthy called on social-media companies to purge more Covid posts: “We’re asking them to consistently take action against misinformation superspreaders on their platforms.” At a briefing the next day, again possibly referring to Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Psaki said that if you post misinformation, “you shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others.”

Recent Freedom of Information Act disclosures show that a week later, on July 23, 2021, Nick Clegg—a former U.K. deputy prime minister and now Facebook parent Meta’s president for global affairs—emailed Dr. Murthy to thank him for meeting with Facebook and to report on “the steps we took just this past week” to “further address the ‘disinfo dozen’: we removed 17 additional Pages, Groups, and Instagram accounts tied to the ‘disinfo dozen’ . . . resulting in every member . . . having had at least one such entity removed.” He added that Facebook was “continuing to make 4 other Pages and Profiles, which have not yet met their removal thresholds, more difficult to find on our platform.”

This goes even beyond what was happening when we wrote the week before Mr. Biden’s inauguration. At that time, lawmakers had repeatedly threatened tech companies with catastrophic consequences if they didn’t more aggressively censor speech the government disfavors. Congress had immunized these companies from liability if they remove “objectionable” but “constitutionally protected” content, to quote Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

In response to these and other inducements and threats, social-media companies were already suppressing speech about Covid that was well within the bounds of legitimate debate and sometimes proved accurate. Facebook had banned anyone from saying that Covid might have originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, or that the Covid vaccines didn’t prevent infection.

When the government exploits these legislative inducements to target specific critics for censorship, it has crossed a constitutional Rubicon. Targeting, punishing and silencing dissenters is the paradigmatic First Amendment violation. The Biden administration is using Big Tech as its private censorship arm, and that violates what the Supreme Court, in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), called an “axiomatic” principle: The government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

The administration’s behind-the-scenes use of social-media companies to evade the First Amendment seems to be continuing unabated. In April this year Ms. Psaki, who was still the White House press secretary, said: “We engage regularly with all social media platforms about steps that can be taken . . . and I’m sure that will continue. But there are also reforms we think Congress could take and we would support taking, including reforming Section 230 [and] enacting antitrust reforms.” The unexplained pivot to “antitrust reform” here is telling: Censor the “problematic” posts and people we identify, Ms. Psaki implies, or we may break you up under the antitrust laws.

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. If in November 2020 President Trump and Republican lawmakers had used threats and private communications with tech companies to remove what they considered “misinformation” about election results, Democrats would have instantly and rightly identified a threat to democracy.

Democracy depends on free and open debate. If government officials continue to deputize private companies to stifle dissenters, it’s high time for federal courts to deliver them a reminder: If it’s state action in disguise, the Constitution applies.

Mr. Ramaswamy is executive chairman of Strive Asset Management and author of “Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam” and “Nation of Victims: Identity Politics, the Death of Merit, and the Path Back to Excellence,” forthcoming in September. Mr. Rubenfeld is a professor at Yale Law School and a First Amendment lawyer. His clients include Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Review & Outlook: As Elon Musk abandons his $44 billion purchase of Twitter, the only winners are progressives who support the social media platform’s censorship of views that don’t conform to their own. Images: Zuma Press/GC Images/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Categories
Saved Web Pages

Think The FBI Deserves The Benefit Of The Doubt? Think Again

p062113ps-0265.jpeg

Can the FBI be trusted? A Federalist analysis of agency lies over the last decade is an unequivocal no.

FISA Warrants

In the summer of 2016, FBI bureaucrats launched a deep-state operation, known as Crossfire Hurricane, to thwart then-candidate Trump’s presidential ambitions. It began by targeting Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and quickly branched out as bureaucrats expanded their surveillance. The spy agency used the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) as a legal pretext to investigate and spy on Papadopoulos, in addition to former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and former Trump adviser Carter Page. Several were interviewed by undercover FBI informant Stefan Halper, whose own investigation would prove a bust.

According to a declassified transcript between Papadopoulos and a Crossfire Hurricane confidential human source (CHS), Papadopoulos repeatedly denied the Trump campaign was working with Russian-backed entities to capture the 2016 election. The FBI, however, wrote off Papadopoulos’s recorded answers as rehearsed and omitted his denials of campaign collusion with overseas actors in FISA court warrant applications and renewals. These were two of the 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” identified in the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general’s blockbuster report on the investigation in December 2019.

Papadopoulos, who pled guilty to making a false statement to the FBI in a perjury trap, was far from the only individual to face political persecution from the federal government’s dystopian investigation.

Not one of the four FISA warrants obtained by the FBI was legally justified, according to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report. In fact, at least two of the warrant applications to spy on Page were declared illegal by a federal judge. Following Horowitz’s blistering report outlining FBI misconduct throughout the entire operation, another federal judge declared that agency malfeasance “calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.”

Subsequent reporting revealed gross abuses of power within the FBI to prosecute political opponents. According to Horowitz, the FBI’s FISA warrants “relied entirely” on DNC-funded opposition research compiled by former British intelligence official Christopher Steele known as the “Steele dossier.” The dossier, which outlined supposed Trump-Russia collusion and has since been thoroughly debunked, included salacious allegations such as supposed “pee tapes” featuring Trump engaging in golden showers with Russian prostitutes at a Moscow hotel.

The FBI knew the dossier lacked credibility as early as January 2017 and knew Steele’s material itself contained Russian disinformation. Desperate to continue their deep-state operation, however, officials lied to the FISA court about Steele’s credibility and hid incriminating info related to the former British intelligence official who was later fired over leaks to the press. An 18th omission, overlooked by the inspector general’s report but documented by Federalist Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland, was that Steele’s sources did not include the ones he developed as a British official.

Even after Steele’s termination as a reliable source, DOJ attorney Bruce Ohr continued to feed information from Steele to the FBI over the course of its investigation. Steele met with Ohr 12 times after the former’s tenure ended as a confidential human source for the bureau, according to the inspector general. Ohr also promoted his wife’s opposition research to FBI investigators and did not disclose she was paid by Fusion GPS, the DNC-contracted firm that commissioned the Steele dossier.

The FBI never told the FISA court that the Trump dossier written by a source who was fired for lying, did not undergo independent verification, and was funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

Despite the overt abuse of the nation’s surveillance apparatus to spy on political opponents, only one FBI official has faced criminal conviction for his role in the probe. In January last year, former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced to just 12 months probation after pleading guilty to fabricating evidence to obtain a FISA warrant. By December, Clinesmith was re-admitted to the D.C. Bar Association in good standing.

Steele’s primary sub-source, Igor Danchenko, was indicted in November on five counts of making false statements to the FBI. In May, a D.C. jury acquitted former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann on charges of lying to the FBI when submitting supposed evidence of Trump-Russian collusion to federal investigators.

Misleading Congress

Following the collapse of the grand Russia-collusion hoax, lawmakers on Capitol Hill began demanding answers about FBI misconduct. Former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress, claiming the bureau was just investigating four individuals, not the Trump campaign, in a dubious spin.

“Late July of 2016, the FBI did, in fact, open a counterintelligence investigation into, is it fair to say the Trump campaign or Donald Trump himself?” asked then-Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., in a 2018 hearing.

“It’s not fair to say either of those things, in my recollection,” Comey said. “We opened investigations on four Americans to see if there was any connection between those four Americans and the Russian interference efforts. And those four Americans did not include the candidate.”

Horowitz also contradicted the FBI in a December 2019 hearing on the release of his report documenting FISA abuses. In September 2017, the FBI told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that the bureau gave the Trump campaign a defensive briefing about Russian interference in the 2016 race.

“In August of 2016 the FBI provided a counterintelligence defensive briefing to then candidate Donald Trump and other senior campaign officials,” wrote FBI Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs Gregory Brower in response to a letter from Grassley. “This defensive briefing was conducted by an experienced FBI counterintelligence agent and focused on the broad range of threats posed by foreign intelligence entities.”

Horowitz testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that there was no briefing given.

Misleading DOJ Leaders

Not only was Congress led astray as FBI officials conducted a rogue operation to defend the incumbent regime, but so was senior leadership in President Trump’s DOJ.

Handwritten notes revealed in the Sussmann trial exposed how FBI agents sought to cover up malicious misconduct, wherein DOJ leaders tasked with FBI oversight were misled about the investigation’s progress. The notes show FBI agent Peter Strzok wrongly told DOJ supervisors the surveillance warrant on Page had been “fruitful.” Strzok also concealed knowledge that Steele’s sources were not credible and claimed instead that the dossier was “CROWN reporting” from MI6, the FBI’s British counterpart. The FBI said the dossier was being used to examine the RNC and Trump campaign’s effort to soften the GOP platform on NATO and Crimea for Russian energy stocks, but the document made no mention of NATO or Crimea.

Strzok also said Trump’s 2016 joke about Russia uncovering Clinton’s 30,000 deleted emails triggered Crossfire Hurricane, with an Australian diplomat tipping off the government about Papadopoulos at the American embassy in London. The tip that Papdopoulos was coordinating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, however, came before Trump made the joke.

Strzok is the same agent whose text messages show he conspired with his mistress and FBI colleague, attorney Lisa Page. Strzok, a lead investigator for Crossfire Hurricane, assured Page of a mysterious “insurance policy” in place if Trump were to be elected, likely in reference to the agency’s inside operations. Page, according to the DOJ inspector general’s 2019 report, told colleagues to go easy on investigating Clinton because “she might be our next president.”

When Page fretted that Trump might actually win the 2016 contest, Strzok assured his romantic partner, “we’ll stop it.”

Misleading Trump

Comey thought the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was important enough to brief outgoing President Barack Obama on the probe but kept Trump in the dark. In fact, Comey later confirmed that he told Trump three times the president was not being investigated and refused to tell him Clinton funded the dossier.

Michael Flynn

In June 2020, a federal judge ordered that all charges be dropped against Flynn, whom Trump subsequently pardoned in the waning days of his administration. Prior to his exoneration, Flynn was facing heavy fines and prison time for making false statements to federal officials in another perjury trap orchestrated by Comey, who bragged about the setup in the first week of the Trump White House.

According to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Flynn lied to a pair of FBI agents about conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak as the incoming national security adviser. Flynn, prosecutors claimed, spoke with Kislyak about financial sanctions against Russian individuals after the 2016 election and then lied about it during an interview with Comey’s agents. Sending a pair of agents to question a senior White House official in the Situation Room, Comey said at a 2018 conference, was “something I probably wouldn’t have done or even gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration.”

“We placed a call to Flynn and said, ‘Hey, we’re sending a couple guys over, hope you’ll talk to them.’ He said ‘sure,’” Comey explained at the 92nd Street Y conference. “Nobody else was there, they interviewed him in a conference room at the White House situation room, and he lied to them.”

Flynn initially pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI before firing his attorneys and hiring new representation to withdraw his guilty plea. His reversal followed the release of declassified transcripts, which revealed Flynn never spoke with Kislyak about sanctions. The two only discussed expulsions of Russian individuals under a different process. Handwritten notes from the FBI agents also revealed the sole purpose of their questioning was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” A bizarre 2017 inauguration day email by Susan Rice to herself also revealed Comey knew there was no legitimate reason to question Flynn.

Andrew McCabe

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was fired from his top role at the bureau for lying to the agency inspector general four times over multiple abuses during his tenure in senior leadership. Those abuses included efforts to set up former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus for obstruction charges, the sabotage of an investigation into Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop before the 2016 election, and failure to report conflicts of interest. While running for a Virginia state Senate seat in 2015, McCabe’s wife accepted a political donation from a close Clinton ally as her husband was tasked with investigating the former secretary of state.

A 2018 DOJ inspector general report blasted McCabe as a serial leaker who lied about it. That same year, a letter from Grassley shined a spotlight on McCabe’s purchase of a $70,000 table on taxpayers’ dime that the agency sought to cover up.

Clinton Emails

The FBI repeatedly told journalists there was no evidence that a foreign power had reviewed Clinton’s emails that she improperly handled on a private server. According to an inspector general report in 2018, however, texts show they almost certainly did, “at least one of them classified,” as Federalist Senior Editor David Harsanyi wrote.

“It is more accurate to say,” read a text from Strzok, “that we know foreign actors obtained access to some of her emails (including at least one Secret one) via compromises of the private email accounts of some of her staffers.”

Weiner Laptop

In 2018, Comey told lawmakers over the course of the investigation into Clinton’s emails that agency officials thoroughly reviewed the laptop belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her now-ex husband Anthony Weiner. The FBI was able to accomplish such a feat within a short timeframe “thanks to the wizardry of our technology” enabling agents who worked “night after night after night” to comb through the remaining material before the 2016 election.

“But virtually none of his account was true,” explained RealClearInvestigations’ Paul Sperry.

In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.

Roger Stone

In 2019, former Trump associate Roger Stone was raided by the FBI after being indicted by Mueller. A CNN camera crew happened to be the only network present at Stone’s Fort Lauderdale home before the sunrise raid, suggesting the friendly press had been tipped off in advance. The FBI, however, refused to comply with a Federalist open records request for any and all emails to or from CNN on the day of the raid.

Jan. 6 Capitol Riot

The Jan. 6 saga has become the sequel in Democrats’ efforts to indict Trump, before FBI agents hatched a plot to go after the former president over supposed espionage.

In October, the bureau refused to offer House Republicans conducting their own independent investigation of the Capitol riot the same material given to congressional Democrats. The FBI’s refusal, the agency claimed, was because officials were already working with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Select Committee on Jan. 6. Pelosi’s committee, however, was established in violation of House rules. Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., the minority appointment as ranking member, is entitled to the documents presented to Democrats.

Senior FBI officials have also refused lawmakers’ questions about how many informants were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and stonewalled inquiries surrounding Ray Epps, the mysterious figure who disappeared from the most-wanted list after he encouraged rioters to swarm the Capitol.

At an Aug. 4 Senate hearing, FBI Director Christopher Wray sought to downplay agency negligence, claiming “we did not have any credible intelligence that pointed to thousands of people breaching the Capitol.” But according to Newsweek, the agency deployed commandos with “shoot to kill authority,” and even Capitol Hill parking attendants knew there were going to be mass protests. The FBI has also been less than forthcoming about a pair of pipe bombs planted at the RNC and DNC headquarters.

At the same time, the FBI has embarked on a nationwide manhunt, to incarcerating demonstrators who have been declared such a threat to the republic over trespassing that they’ve been denied a fair and speedy trial and held in detention for more than 18 months.

Julian Khater, one of two accused of assaulting a Capitol Police officer with pepper spray and whose case has been documented by Julie Kelly at American Greatness, appears to have been outright coerced into making an unconstitutional confession. Khater was detained in March 2021 and has remained in federal custody ever since after intense interrogation without an attorney present.

Kamala Harris on Jan. 6

The presence of Vice President Mike Pence and then-Sen. Kamala Harris at the U.S. Capitol has been the basis for nearly 800 people being charged with at least one count of violating 18 U.S. Code, section 1752, according to Kelly, which indicates that any building or complex hosting the vice president is a restricted area and therefore closed to the public.

“But the Justice Department recently was forced to admit that Harris was not in the building for most of the day on January 6,” Kelly reported, highlighting that Harris, at the time, remained a U.S. senator, not vice president. In the late morning, Harris was moved to the DNC headquarters where a pipe bomb had supposedly been planted.

“Prosecutors have begun amending language in court filings to reflect the fact Harris was not inside the Capitol despite making the assertion in thousands of charging documents,” Kelly wrote.

March 4, 2021

The FBI released a joint memo with the Department of Homeland Security warning that “domestic extremists” were preparing to launch an insurrection by overwhelming the Capitol and removing Democratic lawmakers “on or about the 4th of March.”

Nothing happened.

Hunter Biden Suppression

In July, Grassley’s office published a blockbuster whistleblower report wherein senior agency officials alleged that the bureau is actively trying to sabotage Trump and provide cover for President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

“Multiple FBI whistleblowers, including those in senior positions,” Grassley’s office wrote in a press release, “are raising the alarm about tampering by senior FBI and Justice Department officials in politically sensitive investigations ranging from election and campaign finance probes across multiple election cycles.”

Washington Field Office Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault and Director of Election Crimes Branch Richard Pilger, the whistleblowers alleged, coordinated to amplify defamatory information against Trump while giving cover to Hunter Biden, dismissing Biden intelligence as disinformation.

The agency reportedly knew of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop full of incriminating information on the first family as early as 2019, and Grassley’s whistleblower report highlights how officials may have undermined DOJ investigations into Hunter Biden’s finances in Delaware and Pittsburgh. In March, FBI Assistant Director of the Cyber Division Bryan Vorndran told lawmakers he did not know the whereabouts of Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Gretchen Whitmer Plot

In October 2020, the FBI revealed that a plot to kidnap Michigan Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer had been heroically foiled by federal law enforcement. A group of far-right militiamen, the story goes, conspired to kidnap the governor and try her as a “tyrant” in Wisconsin. In July last year, however, BuzzFeed revealed that at least 12 people involved were FBI informants orchestrating another entrapment.

“The problem with the case is that it appears the FBI, through informants and undercover agents, hatched the kidnapping plotserved in the key leadership positions of the militia group, trained the militia members in military tactics, actively recruited participantsand funded much of the militia’s activities,” reported former CIA Paramilitary Operations Officer Max Morton. “Then, when various members of the Watchman militia became uncomfortable with the kidnapping plot, with several quitting, the FBI’s primary informant pushed the plot along, eventually becoming the militia group’s leader.”

In April, a jury refused to convict four of the 14 defendants charged. Two were found not guilty, another two concluded the trial with no verdict, and another two took plea deals.

Ralph Northam Plot

Dan Chappel, the primary informant in the Whitmer kidnapping conspiracy, targeted a senior disabled veteran named Frank Butler using the same formula to go after then-Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, another Democrat.

“Just as in the Whitmer plot, Chappel lured Frank Butler into attempting to build an explosive device,” Kelly explained in American Greatness. “Chappel also invited Butler to a field training exercise in Wisconsin during the last weekend in October, an excursion attended by some defendants in the Whitmer caper.”

Unlike the FBI’s victims in the Whitmer plot, however, Butler did not participate and has not been charged with any crime.

Sen. Ted Stevens’ Conviction

Former Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, became the victim of FBI corruption in 2008 when forced to defend himself on charges of false statements to federal officials. Stevens lost his seat as the scandal played out, only to be later exonerated when a judge conducting an independent investigation concluded that prosecutors inappropriately hid evidence.

Prosecutors indicted Stevens on charges that he had concealed that he did not pay full value for renovations on an Alaskan cabin less than 100 days out from the 2008 election.

“In fact, Ted Stevens and his wife had paid more than $160,000 for renovations that independent appraisers valued at less than $125,000 at the time,” Roll Call reported.

Prosecutors, however, secured a conviction by hiding evidence that incriminated their own witnesses, one of whom came up with testimony right before trial, with inconsistent statements concealed from the defense, according to the D.C. paper.

Likewise, the government concealed evidence that its star witness had suborned perjury from an underage prostitute with whom the star witness had an illegal sexual relationship. And the government concealed evidence that another witness — whom the government flew back to Alaska away from the Washington, D.C., trial after their mock cross-examination of him went poorly — had told the senator that the bills he received and promptly paid included all of the work that was done. Government prosecutors mocked Stevens when he explained that on the stand — all the while knowing that they had a witness who would have supported him, but whom they had removed from the trial.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry’s Conviction

Former Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., was sentenced to two years of probation with a $25,000 fine and 320 hours of community service in March after a Los Angeles jury convicted him of lying to the federal government after he was entrapped by the FBI.

The saga began in 2019 when a pair of FBI agents showed up at Fortenberry’s Nebraska home ostensibly over a national security issue, not a criminal investigation. Prosecutors ultimately convicted Fortenberry for scheming to conceal material facts to federal officials and two false statements to the FBI.

One false statement was attributed to Forteberry not recognizing a person whose 10-year-old picture was presented to him by agents on their trip to his Nebraska residence. In July 2019, the FBI lied to Fortenberry and his attorney, Gowdy, claiming Fortenberry was not under federal investigation when he was. Fortenberry resigned from the House during his ninth term following conviction.

Pulse Nightclub Shooting

In June 2016, a 29-year-old gunman named Omar Mateen stormed the gay Orlando nightclub Pulse, killing 49 and injuring 53 more in the name of Islamic terrorists killed in Iraq and Syria. Mateen’s father, Seddique, was an FBI informant, whom documents published by The Intercept suggest convinced the bureau to stop investigating his son.

The bureau turned instead to charging Mateen’s widow, Noor Salman, with material support and obstruction of justice. Prosecutors sought to conceal the father’s status as an FBI informant, according to the Intercept, in pursuit of Salman’s conviction.

“Seddique Mateen has not faced criminal charges despite a tip to the FBI that he raised money for terrorism in Pakistan, and an ongoing investigation into money transfers he allegedly made to Turkey and Afghanistan,” the Intercept reported. “Omar Mateen was researching flights to Turkey at the same time that his father was sending payments there, according to defense lawyers’ summary of FBI evidence.” Salmon was apparently unaware of their possible plans to travel to either country.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported on Salmon’s 2018 trial:

Testimony from an F.B.I. agent revealed that prosecutors knew early on, but did not reveal, that one of their crucial initial pieces of evidence — that Ms. Salman had admitted driving by the nightclub with her husband in the days before the attack — most likely did not happen.

Salmon was ultimately acquitted after a 12-hour jury deliberation.

Texas Synagogue Attack

On Jan. 15, 44-year-old Malik Faisal Akram took hostages in a Texas synagogue near Dallas and demanded the release of Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani national also known as “Lady Al Qaeda” serving an 86-year sentence for assault and attempted murder of federal agents and military personnel.

Matthew J. DeSarno, the FBI’s special agent in charge of the Dallas field office, said the attack on a synagogue had nothing to do with targeting Jews.

“We do believe from our engagement with this subject that he was singularly focused on one issue, and it was not specifically related to the Jewish community,” DeSarno said at a press conference.

But as Chuck DeVore of the Texas Public Policy Foundation reported, Akram “was heard to say via the live stream that operated from the synagogue for much of the incident that he chose it because he thought it was the closest assemblage of Jews to the federal facility holding Siddiqui.”

“There are about 1,000 churches in the Fort Worth area within a half-hour drive of Siddiqui’s place of incarceration, compared to seven Jewish centers of worship,” DeVore wrote. “But sure, Special Agent DeSarno, the terrorism was ‘not specifically threatening to the Jewish community.’”

Congressional Baseball Shooter

The FBI designated the death of a shooter who attempted to gun down Republican lawmakers at a 2017 congressional baseball practice as motivated by a desire to commit “suicide by cop.” Last year, the bureau doubled down on the designation.

“It’s fair to say the shooter was motivated by a desire to commit an attack on members of Congress and then knowing by doing so he would likely be killed in the process,” Jill Sanborn, the executive assistant director of the FBI, told the House Appropriations subcommittee.

“The FBI still doesn’t know exactly what the shooter was up to,” McCabe, now a CNN contributor, said last summer. “They never really uncovered the sort of detailed evidence that laid out a specific plot or an objective.”

On the contrary, the 66-year-old shooter who almost killed House GOP Whip Steve Scalise left behind a long record of extremist social media posts dripping with contempt for Republicans, even branding them as the “Taliban of the USA” on Facebook. The FBI also found a list of six congressmen in a rented Virginia storage locker but refused to call it a “hit list.”

Inflating Extremism Cases

Whistleblowers claim the FBI is inflating the number of “domestic violent extremism” cases to fit President Biden’s overarching narrative that home-grown extremism is the nation’s worst national security threat.

“From recent protected disclosures, we have learned that FBI officials are pressuring agents to reclassify cases as ‘domestic violent extremism’ even if the cases do not meet the criteria for such a classification,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, wrote in July, detailing whistleblower allegations in a letter to Wray. “Given the narrative pushed by the Biden Administration that domestic violent extremism is the ‘greatest threat’ facing our country, the revelation that the FBI may be artificially padding domestic terrorism data is scandalous.”

Ignoring Larry Nassar Abuse

The FBI turned a blind eye as former USA gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar abused dozens of young female athletes. According to the DOJ inspector general last year, “senior officials in the FBI Indianapolis Field Office failed to respond to allegations of sexual abuse of athletes by former USA Gymnastics physician Lawrence Gerard Nassar with the urgency that the allegations required.”

“We also found that the FBI Indianapolis Field Office made fundamental errors when it did respond to the allegations, failed to notify the appropriate FBI field office (the Lansing Resident Agency) or state or local authorities of the allegations, and failed to take other steps to mitigate the ongoing threat posed by Nassar,” the inspector general added.

Kyle Rittenhouse

Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of politicized charges brought against him last summer when he shot three men in self-defense. Two died, and contrary to the media’s racialized coverage of the trial, all three were white.

During the proceedings, wherein an 18-year-old Rittenhouse (now 19) faced life in prison, prosecutors used aerial footage from FBI surveillance in their effort to convict Rittenhouse. When the defense tried to access “the rest” of the FBI footage from the night in question, however, the bureau claimed it no longer existed.

Demonizing James Rosen

In 2010, the Obama administration began aggressive surveillance of journalist James Rosen who was working for Fox News at the time. The Justice Department tracked Rosen by falsely claiming the reporter was a potential terrorist collaborator and accused him of violating the Espionage Act.

The Obama administration tracked Rosen’s movements and, according to Fox News, even seized the phone records of his parents.

Deadly Wrongful Conviction

A 2007 ruling against the government cost the FBI $102 million after agency misconduct resulted in the deaths of two men. In order to protect a mob informant, the FBI was caught deliberately withholding evidence in a case that led to the wrongful convictions of four men, three of which were sentenced to death, two of whom died before true justice was served.

Martha Stewart

Most Americans today believe Martha Stewart was convicted 20 years ago on charges of “insider trading.” Her actual conviction that sent her to federal prison was conspiracy to lie about the crime for which she was never charged over a trade that had already taken place.

Stewart’s quarter-million-dollar sale of ImClone stock served as the pretext for which federal prosecutors, led by none other than Comey, went after the media mogul. Comey’s case, however, was so weak that prosecutors pursued a novel legal theory to secure a conviction.

According to the theory they pursued, Stewart engaged in “securities fraud” when she declared that she was innocent, which prosecutors said was designed to prop up the value of her company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. In other words, Stewart’s proclamation of innocence was declared a crime by federal law enforcement, and she spent six months incarcerated.

Mar-a-Lago Raid

The Department of Justice appears to be following the same playbook agency officials have used for years in the Democrats’ series of manufactured scandals to bring down Trump.

Last week, the FBI executed an unprecedented raid of the former president’s Florida residence ostensibly conducted to enforce the Presidential Records Act. Federal officials confiscated more than a dozen boxes from the 128-room mansion pursuant to the rarely prosecuted law, claiming Trump harbored classified information related to the nation’s nuclear secrets. Leaked claims to the Washington Post that Trump possessed sensitive nuclear records, which came hours after Attorney General Merrick Garland professed the agency’s professionalism, however, showcase the sensationalism crafted by officials desperate to justify the raid, which included more than 30 agents.

At a press conference last week, Garland admitted to personally signing off on the raid he called “narrowly scope[d].” An examination of the warrant, however, reveals that it authorized FBI agents to seize any and every document Trump came into contact with as president. Furthermore, none of the three criminal statutes the DOJ cited in the warrant required the material to be classified, according to Cleveland.

The FBI also attempted to dispel claims that federal officials stripped the president of his passports, telling CBS News that the agency was not in possession of the documents after Trump blasted that they had been confiscated. An email made public by Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich, however, exposed the FBI’s lie. The email from Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence and export control section in the DOJ’s National Security Division, confirms that “the filter agents seized three passports belonging to President Trump, two expired and one being his active diplomatic passport.”

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Comments

The Federalist logo eagle mark

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Subscribe

Categories
Saved Web Pages

New Document Confirms FBI Authored Request for Trump Search Warrant

Christopher-Wray-1200x675.jpg

A document made public on Aug. 18 for the first time shows that an FBI agent authored the request for a search warrant for former President Donald Trump’s resort in Florida.

The document, an application for a warrant (pdf), was made by an FBI special agent.

The document also shows that an agent, possibly the same one, authored the affidavit, or a sworn statement that outlined to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida why it should grant the application.

The identity of the agent who signed the application and the name of the agent who signed the affidavit are redacted.

The application was made on Aug. 5, and approved the same day by U.S. District Judge Bruce Reinhart, who approved the unsealing of the application on Aug. 12.

Agents executed the warrant on Aug. 8, taking boxes of items and documents from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.

While opposing the release of the affidavit, government lawyers said in a recent filing that they did not object to making public other documents related to the raid, including the application, as long as minor redactions could be made “to protect government personnel.”

Releasing the affidavit, on the other hand, would harm an ongoing investigation into potential criminal conduct by Trump, the lawyers argued.

Reinhart on Friday ordered them to produce a redacted version of the affidavit to him by Aug. 25 at noon. He said he was leaning towards releasing a redacted copy, though a lawyer for media outlets calling for its release said the process will take weeks.

“I find that on the present record the Government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed,” Reinhart said in a written order after a hearing.

A slew of documents have been filed under seal in the case. Some, including the warrant itself, were unsealed by Reinhart with light redactions on Aug. 12.

Neither federal lawyers nor Trump’s counsel opposed the release of those documents, which indicated that the FBI’s Washington Field Office was running point on the raid. The warrant was predicated on the belief that Trump has likely violated laws governing the transmittal of defense information, concealment of records, and destruction of records. Trump has said he is innocent and being politically targeted.

U.S. lawyers filed the application with the court on Aug. 15. Until Friday, none of its details could be viewed by the public.

Other documents were also unsealed: a criminal cover sheet showing U.S. Attorney Juan Gonzalez or the Southern District of Florida stating the case did not originate from several pending matters, a motion to seal the warrant and related documents, and the approval of the motion to seal.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to address a typo. The Epoch Times regrets the error.

Categories
Saved Web Pages

Alexandroupoli Becomes US Arms Port, Russian Influence Lurks

FaYNUOSXgAA8CKv.jpg

ALEXANDROUPOLI – Few ships had used it but Greece’s northern port city of Alexandroupoli, 11 miles from the Turkish border, has suddenly become a hub-bub of activity, with the United States using it as a staging area for arms after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, creating a geopolitical chessboard.

It seems like an unlikely spot for diplomatic showdowns, said The New York Times in a feature by Niki Kitsantonis and Anatoly Kurmanaev about how it’s turned into a face-off between competing interests and countries, and businesses with ties to the US and Russia vying for control.

There’s a bear in the ointment though.

The port is going to be sold and bidders for a controlling stake, similar to the Chinese company COSCO running Greece’s biggest port of Piraeus adjacent to Athens, are four groups of companies – two from the US and two tied to Russia.

In the growing Cool War between the US and Russia, Greece has become a nexus at the same time that relations between Greece and Russia have been strained over Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ backing Ukraine and sending arms and equipment there before pulling back.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, already furious that Mitsotakis in an address to the US Congress asked lawmakers to veto President Joe Biden’s plan to sell more F-16s to Turkey, spun further out of control over Alexandroupoli as part of a growing American military presence in Greece.

“Against whom were they established?” Erdogan said of US military posts in Greece that could see more under a renewed miltary co-operation pact between Athens and Washington as relations tightened.

“The answer they give is ‘against Russia.’ We don’t buy it,” said Erdogan but his always volatile nature has further demonstrated the intensity of the tug ‘o war over who will control the port, and if Greece would be left out.

Adding to the brouhaha is that Turkey rejected European Union sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine and bought Russian-made S-400 missile defense systems that could be used against Greece in a conflict and undermine NATO.

The port has suddenly appeared on the radar screen in Moscow, Ankara and Washington, especially after US Senator Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, made a surprise visit there, underscoring its importance.

The US sent 14 times more war goods through the port in 2021 – before the invasion of Ukraine – but that has seen even more pouring through, some 3,100 pieces including ammunition and tanks, the report said.

The US said it’s not destined for Ukraine but American military units stationed in Eastern and Northern Europe but that matters little to Russia or companies tied to Moscow who want a big piece of the port.

RED GAS

“What we have done is transform the port into a dynamic military operations hub,” said Andre Cameron, who oversees U.S. military logistics at the port. “Nothing like it has been done here before.”

That’s not been lost on the companies who want to run it.

They include a group run by billionaire Russian-Greek businessman Ivan Savvidis, who already runs Greece’s second-largest port in Thessaloniki and has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Savvidis is a player in Greece, so much so that there’s been a warrant for his arrest out since March of 2018 for carrying a gun onto the playing field of a soccer match involving the team he owns PAOK, but not executed.

His spokesperson wouldn’t comment to the Times, the paper said.

Another bidder is Greece’s Copelouzos Group, which is a partner with the state-owned Russian gas company Gazprom that was exempted from EU sanctions because the 27-member bloc, including Greece, is dependent on Russian supplies, amid fears they could be curtailed this winter.

Copelouzos’s competitors and critics said the company is susceptible the kind of crushing blackmail type of pressure that Putin can bring and would compromise its role if awarded the control of Alexandroupoli.

“There are significant concerns because the situation with Russia can deteriorate,” John Charalambakis, an owner of BlackSummit Financial Group, an American asset management firm that’s also bidding said.

“The fact that Russia is using energy as a weapon is an important factor,” he told the paper and that already has emerged with the EU and Greece trying to pare back usage of electricity and looking for alternatives to Russian energy.

The paper, citing unnamed Congressional staff sources, said there’s worry on Capitol Hill in Washington about Putin behind the scenes putting his hand on the port’s operation, citing the bidders with Russian links.

“The group has many cooperations across the world with many companies,” said Ioannis Arapoglou, the Copelouzos Group’s General Manager, adding that its partnership with Gazprom “is just one of those, and a relatively small one for the size of the company.”

He noted that the Copelouzos family is investing  in a project to build a liquid natural gas terminal near Alexandroupoli, aimed at reducing Balkan countries reliance on Russian gas by bringing in more supplies from the US.

Local officials and businessmen said they hope the invasion of Ukraine and regional tensions will turn the port into an alternate supply route getting around the Turkish-controlled straits to the Black Sea.

Konstantinos Chatzikonstantinou, the chief executive of the Alexandroupoli Port Authority told the paper: “Every crisis creates opportunities.”

Categories
Saved Web Pages

Meet Putin’s inner circle of evil, from Nikolai Patrushev to Ramzan Kadyrov

putin-inner-circle.jpg?quality=75&strip=

It’s been five months since Russian forces invaded Ukraine and began their relentless assault on their far-smaller neighbor. The Western press has focused heavily on Russian President Vladimir Putin, who masterminded the invasion over many years and has overseen its execution.

But Putin isn’t working on his own.

He is surrounded by a cabal of equally ruthless lieutenants just as eager to deceive the West with bombast and rhetoric.

These henchmen – and occasional women — are not just wily, they’re extremely well-compensated thanks to their close proximity to Putin’s kleptocratic machine. Long-serving and devoted, the Russian leader owes this creepy crew a perverse debt of gratitude for helping him achieve his horrifying goals.

Here’s a look at the top seven characters in Putin’s orbit of war.

Nikolai PatrushevNikolai PatrushevREUTERS

The heir apparent

Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Security Council, is Putin’s closest advisor, long-time personal friend, and the Kremlin hawk who could easily take over the reins of Mother Russia — at least temporarily — if Putin were to become incapacitated. Patrushev is highly influential in the Kremlin bureaucracy and is one of the principal architects of the Putin doctrine — which seeks to return former Soviet-era states (like Ukraine) to Russian control.

Patrushev is Putin’s evil twin, with both twins, in this case, being evil. Their relationship dates back to 1975, when they worked together in the KGB. Like his boss, Patrushev — who’s served as a spy operative for 50 years — has likely authorized targeted killings of numerous Russian “enemies.” Among his victims are former FSB officer and vocal Putin critic Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisoned in Britain in 2006, along with Chechen separatist leaders hunted down and killed as part of a counter-terrorism program during the late-1990s.

At 71, Patrushev, like Putin, is a committed athlete who regularly plays volleyball and swims nearly three miles a week. He doesn’t abuse alcohol, which is uncommon for Russian males, favoring the occasional glass of wine over hard liquor. He is a workaholic and never late for meetings. It’s likely Patrushev helped hatch the plan for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014 and Putin’s attack against the rest of the Ukraine this past February. Patrushev is also a rabid anti-American propagandist who recently accused Washington of running a biological weapons program in Ukraine. Even more outlandish, he’s suggested that the US is planning to drop a nuke on Ukrainian territory and then blame Russia for it.

Dmitriy PeskovDmitriy PeskovSputnik/Sergey Guneev/Kremlin via REUTERS

The talking head

Dmitriy Peskov, Putin’s press secretary, epitomizes the Russian proverb “You can piss into his eyes and he will say it’s God’s dew.” This maxim describes folks who are so shameless in their ability to tell lies, that they remain unfazed even when directly challenged to their face. Peskov has served as Putin’s spokesperson since 2008. His job, essentially, is to create an alternate reality in which Russia’s geopolitical activities are perceived as benign — if not downright righteous — while covering up the atrocities committed by Putin and the Kremlin.

Peskov, 54, excels at this job, judging by the fact that most Russians seem to support Putin’s “special operation” into Ukraine — launched, Putin has said, to “de-Nazify and demilitarize” the nation. Peskov was even able to trick the Biden security team into believing that Russia might actually not launch its armies against Ukraine, causing Washington to hesitate until Putin’s forces encircled and attacked the nation on February 24.

Like others in Putin’s world, Peskov has managed to become a multi-millionaire from repeating his boss’ lies. He owns a $10 million real estate empire, travels on private jets and yachts, drives luxurious vehicles and, of course, sports designer watches. His third wife and two adult children from a pair of previous marriages are also “bathing in gold,” as another Russian saying goes, and own multimillion-dollar homes all over the world. Peskov’s 24-year-old daughter Elizaveta Peskova studied business and marketing in Paris and held internships at Louis Vuitton and with the European Parliament. There are rumors that Peskov may be divorcing his current wife, a 47-year-old former Olympic ice-dancing champion Tatyana Navka. Peskov married Navka in 2015 after apparently charming her with his “elegance and perseverance” as well as “buoyant” dancing style.

Maria ZakharovaMaria ZakharovaYouTube

The saucy spokeswoman

Maria Zakharova is the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman and one of the most colorful personalities in Putin’s circle. At 46, she is the first female spokesperson in the history of Russia’s Foreign Ministry and has held the job since 2015. Half warrior-half seductress, Zakharova is known for her combative communication style and the quick-witted barbs that she likes to deploy against Western officials, often laden with sexual innuendo. By day, Zakharova’s briefings are filled with Putin’s lies — such as portraying Ukraine as being overrun by Nazis and in need of immediate liberation by Russian forces. By night, she floods social media with suggestive selfies wearing bright red lipstick and provocatively poses in strapless dresses. In early July, Zakharova posted a sexy video of herself fondling two strawberries with her mouth and tongue to the tune of the patriotic Russian song “Kalinka,” performed by the Red Army Choir.

But the main targets of Putin’s propaganda minister are the Biden Administration, US democracy, and Western values in general. Last month, Zakharova posted on her Telegram channel a bizarre photo of two transgender Biden Administration officials, Dr. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services, and Sam Brinton, deputy assistant secretary responsible for nuclear issues within the Department of Energy. In the photo, which was taken at the French ambassador’s Bastille Day party, Rachel Levine sported a “masculine”-styled admiral’s uniform, while Sam Brinton wore a more “feminine”-looking blue, floral patterned dress with a sweetheart neckline, blazer, and blue, strappy heels.  “Answer this question honestly: are these the values you would like to impart on your children? Or shall we put up a fight for our own?,” wrote Zakharova, mocking Western liberalism and democracy.

Margarita SimonyanMargarita SimonyanREUTERS

The Media-Maven

Margarita Simonyan, 42 is Putin’s Propaganda Queen. Officially, she is the Editor-in-Chief of RT, Russia’s global network of television channels, websites, and social media accounts broadcasting to non-Russian speaking audiences in English, Spanish, French, Arabic, German, and Russian. In reality, Simonyan is no journalist. RT is Putin’s pet project: a Russian state-funded and state-directed news outlet created with the primary goal of publishing pro-Kremlin content to influence foreign, and especially Western, audiences about Russia and Putin. Putin created RT in 2005 as Russia Today. But in late 2013 Putin issued an Executive Presidential order to “restructure” the network and call it “RT” — concealing RT’s affiliation with Russia.

in Russia, she graduated from high school with a Gold Medal for top academic performance,  completed vocational training in broadcasting and later obtained a university degree in journalism.

Putin is on a first-name-basis with Simonyan and likely personally approved her candidacy for this high-profile role, which she assumed at the age of 25 in 2005. He’s also rather friendly with her: In 2019, during a ceremony in the Kremlin, in which Simonyan was given a state award for her patriotic reporting, Putin used the Russian word “ty”— which is a sign of familiarity — rather than “vy,” which is a more formal version of the English “you”. Simonyan also has a yellow phone on her desk with a direct secure line to the Kremlin.

RT content ranges from “animated genitals,” a dancing vagina and penis — and their friends “laughing breast” and “overly-eager hand” — to Simonyan-issued threats of nuclear war if Russia is denied victory in Ukraine.

Arkady RotenbergArkady RotenbergEPA

The hockey bro

Arkady Rotenberg, 70, a billionaire Russian businessman, has been Putin’s pal since the 1960s, when he and his brother, Boris, met a young Putin in their hometown of St. Petersburg while attending a training center for sambo — the Russian martial art and combat sport favored by the Soviet military. As chairman of the executive board of the Russian Ice Hockey Federation, Rotenberg regularly plays hockey with Putin and was once his judo sparring partner, a sport Putin says transformed him from a young hooligan into a statesman. Awarded by Putin with billions of dollars in oil and gas contracts, Rotenberg owns a $38 million yacht, a luxury hotel in Rome, a large estate in Surrey, England, and several villas in Italy and France.

Vladimir PotaninVladimir PotaninREUTERS

The uber-oligarch

Vladimir Potanin, 61 is another Putin’s pal, hockey partner, and the richest man in Russia, reportedly worth $25 billion. Potanin was one of the “Big Seven” Russian oligarchs who helped reelect Putin’s predecessor, Boris Yeltsin to the Russian presidency in 1996. Yeltsin, who became the first Russian president after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, presided over one of the darkest, most tumultuous and chaotic periods in Russian history. While the West foolishly expected Russia to turn into a Jeffersonian democracy, Russian leaders schemed to defraud the country’s major natural resource companies. Potanin’s relationship with Putin dates back to 2000, when Yeltsin hand-picked Putin as Russia’s next President, while Potanin was busy masterminding the “loans-for-shares” program that enriched oligarchs like himself. As a result of this massive fraud, yesterday’s communists turned into capitalists overnight, and Russia became a modern mafia state ruled by siloviki (intelligence operatives) with virtually unlimited power and financial resources at their disposals.

Sergei Pavlovich RolduginSergei Pavlovich RolduginGetty Images

The culture kapo

Sergei Pavlovich Roldugin, 70, is a childhood friend of the Russian president who introduced Putin to his future, and now former, wife Lyudmila and is the godfather of their eldest daughter, Maria. A graduate of the Leningrad State Conservatory, Roldugin is a professional cellist who serves in various senior positions in St. Petersburg music and arts organizations, including the famed Mariinsky Theater and the St. Petersburg State Conservatory. But Roldugin’s role in Putin’s inner circle has nothing to do with mastering Tchaikovsky (though it does help). Indeed, whereas most of Putin’s inner-circle come from the worlds of espionage, Rodulgin’s artsy background is the perfect cover for safeguarding a portion of Putin’s personal fortune — including up to $2 billion managed via Roldugin’s brother that were exposed by the Panama Papers. In his autobiography, Putin says he and Roldugin “met [in 1977] and have never parted. He is just like a brother to me. Before, when I had nowhere to go, I went to him and slept and ate with him.” 

Ramzan KadyrovRamzan KadyrovREUTERS

The second-generation sycophant

Ramzan Kadyrov is the brutal leader of the Russian province of Chechnya whom Putin recently promoted to lieutenant-general in the Russian military as a reward for his role in the Ukraine invasion. Like his father, Akhmad Kadyrov — who fought for Chechen independence but then later switched sides — the junior Kadyrov is a staunch Putin supporter. In 2015, he was implicated in the murder of the prominent Putin critic Boris Nemtsov who was gunned down on a Moscow bridge while he was preparing a report about Russia’s role in the Crimea conflict. Today, Kadyrov is gearing up to send four Chechen battalions to Ukraine to help replenish exhausted Russian forces. His fighters, known as Kadyrovtsy, are feared for their viciousness and have been on the hunt for Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, presumably to assassinate him. Kadyrov, 45, along The Wagner Group’s Dmitry Utkin, is one of Putin’s two principal hitmen outside of Russia, covertly killing off his boss’ enemies without getting Putin’s hands dirty. The Chechen warlord said in July that he is standing ready for Putin’s order to blow Western countries to “smithereens.”

Categories
Saved Web Pages

National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, Russian Counterpart Meet In Moscow

5225fm7k_ajit-doval-russian-nsa-nikolai-

NSA Ajit Doval met his Russian counterpart Nikolai Patrushev in Moscow on Wednesday.

New Delhi:

National Security Adviser Ajit Doval on Wednesday held talks with his Russian counterpart Nikolai Patrushev in Moscow, focusing on bilateral, regional and global issues.

Both sides discussed issues relating to bilateral cooperation in the areas of security as well as topical issues on the regional and international agenda, according to a Russian readout.

“A wide range of issues of bilateral cooperation in the area of security, as well as topical problems on the regional and international agenda, were discussed,” it said.

“The sides agreed to continue the dialogue between the two countries’ Security Councils, having emphasised the progressive development of the Russian-Indian special and privileged strategic partnership,” the Russian statement said.

It is learnt that various aspects of overall bilateral strategic cooperation and the situation in Afghanistan figured in the discussions.

???????????????????? On August 17 in Moscow, Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Nikolai Patrushev held talks with National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister of India Ajit Doval pic.twitter.com/tOaxiVlBSR

— Russia in India ???????? (@RusEmbIndia) August 17, 2022

India has been maintaining that the crisis in Ukraine must be resolved through diplomacy and dialogue.

In the last few months, India has also increased the import of discounted crude oil from Russia notwithstanding increasing disquiet over it by several Western powers.

India’s crude oil imports from Russia has risen over 50 times since April and now it makes up for 10 per cent of all crude bought from overseas.

Last month, Russian Ambassador Denis Alipov said Russia appreciates India for not supporting attempts to isolate it in multilateral forums and that bilateral trade between the two countries is on an upswing.

India has also been in touch with several leading powers including Russia on the situation in Afghanistan.

In June, India re-established its diplomatic presence in Kabul by deploying a “technical team” in its embassy in the Afghan capital.

India had withdrawn its officials from the embassy after the Taliban seized power last August following concerns over their security.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

WP Radio
WP Radio
OFFLINE LIVE