Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion

Argentina, U.S. Treasury, a Bombing and a Murder

Posted on by

Exclusive: Documents Confirm Leak of Unexplained Deposits to Nisman’s US Bank Account

by Michael LaSusa

Documents obtained exclusively by LobeLog confirm that Argentine officials violated an agreement with the US Treasury Department by leaking sensitive financial information regarding deceased prosecutor Alberto Nisman. These leaks could complicate further US-Argentine cooperation in the controversial investigations surrounding Nisman’s death.

The leaks exposed a number of suspicious financial transactions involving a New York bank account maintained by Nisman since March 2002. Argentine authorities are currently investigating the possibility that the account was used for money laundering, while a separate inquiry attempts to determine the cause of Nisman’s death.

Argentine investigators have previously hypothesized that some of the deposits in Nisman’s New York account could be linked to a group of US investors, including some prominent funders of conservative political causes, who have been locked in a years-long legal battle with Argentina over the country’s debt.

And media reports have recently surfaced that appear to confirm that Nisman received questionable payments through a separate bank account in Uruguay from a company owned by US billionaire Sheldon Adelson, one of the most influential fund-raisers on the American conservative political scene.

Neither the money laundering investigation nor the inquiry into Nisman’s death has yet reached an official conclusion. But the information contained in the documents obtained by LobeLog, combined with a months-long investigation, sheds new light on a case that Argentine journalist Uki Goni wrote has “enough twists and turns to satisfy the most avid conspiracy theorist.”

Suicide or Murder?

When Nisman was found dead in his apartment on January 18, 2015, the news made headlines around the world. For more than a decade, the prosecutor had led the investigation into the 1994 bombing of the headquarters of the Argentine Jewish Mutual Association—AMIA, by its Spanish acronym—the deadliest anti-Semitic attack in Latin American history.

In 2006, Nisman formally charged several high-level Iranian officials with masterminding the bombing. Just days before he died, he had accused the administration of former Argentine President Cristina Kirchner of making a pact with the Iranians in 2013 to set aside their alleged involvement in the AMIA attack in exchange for closer economic ties between the two countries.

The day before Nisman was scheduled to testify about his allegations in an emergency session of congress, he was found dead in his bathroom with a single gunshot wound to his head.

Many observers have speculated that Nisman’s death relates in one way or another to his involvement in the AMIA case, especially given the nature and timing of the accusations he lodged against the Kirchner government. Kirchner herself has suggested that rogue elements of the country’s now-disbanded and reconstituted intelligence service murdered Nisman in order to destabilize her government.

On the other hand, Argentine journalist Facundo Pastor recently published a book suggesting that Nisman killed himself after realizing the weakness of the evidence for his allegations. “He spent two years confronting the government,” Pastor told The Independent, “but the day comes to present his case and Nisman realises that he has nothing.”

An Argentine federal judge dismissed Nisman’s charges against the Kirchner administration soon after the prosecutor’s death. The country’s recently inaugurated president Mauricio Macri has promised not to appeal a separate ruling by an Argentine court that declared the 2013 agreement with Iran unconstitutional.

Argentine government investigators still have not determined whether Nisman’s death was a suicide or a murder, but members of Nisman’s family have questioned several aspects of the government’s inquiry so far. And adding yet another twist to an already convoluted story, the late prosecutor’s ex-wife, Sandra Arroyo Salgado, who serves as a federal judge in Argentina, has maintained that Nisman was assassinated for “economic motives.”

Money Laundering

Arroyo Salgado revealed the existence of Nisman’s New York bank account to Argentine authorities in March 2015. Nisman’s mother, Sara Garfunkel, and his sister, Sandra Nisman, were listed as signatories on the account, as was Diego Lagomarsino—the technology expert who worked in Nisman’s office and admitted to giving the late prosecutor the gun that apparently killed him.

Shortly after Arroyo Salgado’s revelation, the Financial Information Unit (UIF) of the Argentine Justice and Human Rights Ministry asked for money laundering charges to be brought against Lagomarsino, who had reportedly sent half his monthly salary to the New York account. Soon after Lagomarsino was charged, Garfunkel and Sandra Nisman were also indicted for their alleged involvement in laundering funds through the account.

In April, the federal judge then in charge of the case, Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, requested information on the alleged money laundering from US authorities. According to the documents obtained by LobeLog, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) “shared sensitive financial information with the UIF on Argentinian [sic] subjects associated with the deceased prosecutor and their joint investment account at Merrill Lynch in New York, and other accounts in Uruguay and other countries.”

“Since the [Argentine] courts’ requests for information from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) were taking too long,” the document continues, the head of the UIF, Jose Alberto Sbatella, “was asked by Argentine Federal Judge Canicoba Corral to ask for FinCEN’s permission to incorporate FinCEN’s relevant report in the case file so that it could be used as evidence in court.”

On July 7, Argentine news outlet Infobae reported that it had gained exclusive access to documents related to the money laundering case. A few days later, on July 16, Infobae reported that Sbatella had turned over the FinCEN report to Canicoba Corral, and that the judge was seeking to incorporate it as evidence in the proceedings. (This request was granted in September.)

Then, on July 27, the Buenos Aires-based news outlet Pagina/12 published an article titled “Nisman and his incredible financial relations,” which revealed previously unknown details about suspicious transactions involving Nisman’s New York account.

Several other media reports followed that contained information apparently provided by FinCEN to the UIF, which had in turn handed it over to Canicoba Corral, who was removed from the case in November after making prejudicial statements to various media outlets about the defendants’ alleged guilt.

Anatomy of a Leak

A US State Department employee sent an email with an English translation of the Pagina/12 article to colleagues at the Treasury Department on August 6, captioning it with the message, “It now appears indisputable that Argentine authorities, in violation of their agreement with Treasury, have leaked information about Alberto Nisman.”

Argentine news outlet Perfil subsequently published a front-page report on August 23 titled, “Nimsan received almost $600,000 in the US from nine suspicious depositors.” The English-language Buenos Aires Herald followed up the story the next day with a piece headlined, “Suspicious transfers raise more questions on Nisman.”

On August 24, a State Department employee sent another email to colleagues at the Treasury Department with links to both above-mentioned articles.

“[I] wanted to make sure you or you successor at Treasury saw that the story below made the front page of Perfil this weekend and was picked up by the [Buenos Aires] Herald today,” the message reads in part. The author then asks, “Is this just rehashing of an old story or something new?”

The documents—obtained by LobeLog from the Treasury Department via a freedom of information request—are almost entirely redacted, making it impossible to tell what, if any, response Treasury employees provided to the State Department emails.

The Treasury Department and the State Department declined to comment for this story, as did the US Department of Justice. The latter claimed through a spokesperson that the “investigation is a matter of Argentine jurisdiction and, therefore, any inquiries should be directed to Argentine authorities.” LobeLog sought comment from the Argentine Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, but did not receive a response.

Unexplained Transactions

The August 23 article from Perfil, based on information reportedly provided by US financial investigators to their Argentine counterparts, detailed nearly $600,000 in suspicious deposits made to Nisman’s New York bank account between 2012 and 2014.

Officials from the UIF had previously speculated that some of that deposits could have originated from the “holdouts,” a group of investors who have refused Argentina’s debt restructuring offers, and who stand to make billions of dollars if they prevail in the related legal dispute that is currently playing out in U.S. courts. One of the most prominent “holdouts” is NML Capital, owned by billionaire hedge fund manager and Republican Party power broker Paul Singer.

Since Nisman’s death, lobbying groups with ties to the “holdouts” have funded efforts to promote his work on the AMIA case. While the prosecutor was alive, these organizations spent millions of dollars on a campaign to “do whatever we can to get our government and media’s attention focused on what a bad actor Argentina is,” in the words of one group’s executive director.

An independent investigation by LobeLog did not reveal any definite links between the “holdouts” and the depositors identified by various news reports. However, the timing of some of the transactions does appear to coincide with important developments related to the debt dispute.

One example is that of “Joseph Gestetner,” who deposited $10,000 in Nisman’s account on September 13, 2012. Perfil reported that his name “does not appear in official records.” When contacted for comment, New York-based public relations professional and Orthodox Jewish community activist Yossi Gestetner—sometimes known as Joseph—denied that the documents obtained by Perfil referred to him.

Public records searches similarly turned up little information about “Daniel Benayon,” who transferred $15,000 to Nisman’s account on the same day as the transfer from Gestetner. A Facebook profile indicates that a man named Daniel Benayon lived in Argentina and worked for a Buenos Aires-based Orthodox Jewish organization, but messages seeking comment from this individual did not receive a response.

One of the largest single deposits revealed by Perfil came from “RODFA Limited,” which transferred $134,975 to Nisman’s New York account on September 14, 2012—the day after the deposits from Gestetner and Benayon.

Public records research uncovered that the company was incorporated in March 2012 in Hong Kong, listing “Rodrigo Martin Ferreiros” and “Facundo Pla” as signatories on the incorporation documents. (The name RODFA appears to derive from the first several letters of the two individuals’ names.)

A document filed with the Hong Kong Companies Registry notes that Pla ceased to act as director of RODFA on September 1, 2012—roughly two weeks before the deposit to Nisman’s account. A separate document indicates that Ferreiros assumed the position of director in March 2013. According to RODFA’s most recent annual filing, Ferreiros, who listed a Buenos Aires address in the document, continued to serve as director of RODFA as of March 2015.

Infobae reporter Andres Ballesteros revealed that the Argentine Senate briefly employed an individual named Rodrigo Martin Ferreiros from September to December 2013. However, efforts to uncover more detailed information about Ferreiros and Pla, as well as attempts to contact them for comment, were unsuccessful.

The series of deposits from September 13 and 14, 2012—totaling roughly $160,000—occurred at the same time that an important discussion of the Argentine debt situation was unfolding at a meeting of the “Paris Club,” an informal group of financial officials from various countries tasked with helping resolve disputes between creditors and debtor nations. The deposits also coincided with mass anti-government protests in Argentina against the administration of then-president Cristina Kirchner.

More Mysterious Deposits

In addition to the transfers described above, Perfil also revealed a $50,000 deposit to Nisman’s account from “Guillermo N. Salemi” [sic] on August 21, 2014, as well as another deposit of $50,000 made the same day from a firm called “Las Tierras USA.” An individual named Guillermo N. Salimei [sic] is listed as the registered agent of three active companies incorporated in the Miami area in 2013, including Las Tierras USA.

When contacted for comment, the registered president of Las Tierras, Agustin Misson, confirmed that he was a “friend” of Salimei, but claimed that he did not know how to get in touch with him. Misson also said he knew nothing about the bank transfers. Further attempts to reach Salimei for comment were not successful.

On August 21, 2014, the same day as the transfers from Salimi and Las Tierras, a $10,000 deposit was made to Nisman’s account by an entity referred to as “Iungelson (from Israel).” Perfil reported that “Iungelson” may refer to a member of Nisman’s extended family, but LobeLog was unable to determine whether the name refers to an individual or an organization.

On August 22, 2014—the day after the Salimei, Las Tierras and Iungelson transfers—Nisman’s account received a $50,000 deposit from “Vivaterra SA,” whose name matches that of a South American travel agency based in Brazil. LobeLog made initial contact with a representative of the firm’s Argentina office, but repeated requests for comment went unanswered.

This series of deposits—also totaling $160,000—were made less than two weeks after the Kirchner administration announced that it would sue the United States in the International Court of Justice over a ruling by US judge Thomas Griesa that ordered US banks not to process any of Argentina’s payments to its debt-holders until the country also agreed to pay the “holdouts.” The bulk of these payments came on August 21—the same day that Griesa ruled against a proposal by the Argentine government intended as a workaround to his previous decision.

Further Twists and Turns

The name of yet another mysterious figure has also surfaced in connection with Nisman’s New York account: Claudio Picon, the owner of the Argentine packaging business Palermopack. Picon’s brother and business partner Fabian Picon is the son-in-law of Hugo Anzorreguy, the former head of Argentina’s intelligence service who is now on trial for his alleged role in facilitating a bribe to a key witness in the AMIA case.

Perfil reported last June that Claudio Picon deposited $200,000 in Nisman’s account in July 2012, around the time of crucial hearings in the US court system related to the debt dispute between Argentina and the holdouts.

In the August 23 expose, Perfil also documented transfers by Picon to Nisman’s New York account totaling $72,000 between January 2013 and March 2014—a time period during which the controversy over the debt dispute and the agreement between Argentina and Iran regarding the AMIA case reached a peak.

In addition, the Picon brothers’ company owned an Audi Q5 sport utility vehicle commonly driven by Nisman, which Claudio Picon has said he lent to the late prosecutor for free on account of their close friendship. Representatives for the Picons could not be reached for comment.

One of the most enigmatic figures mentioned in the documents obtained by Perfil is Damian Stefanini, an Argentine businessman who deposited $150,000 in Nisman’s account on October 23, 2012—less than a week before Griesa issued another ruling against Argentina in the debt dispute.

Perfil journalist Emilia Delfino reported that according to “judicial sources” Stefanini and Claudio Picon had traveled together to Sao Paulo around the time of that deposit, and that they had also traveled together to other countries, including Paraguay, Uruguay, the United States and China.

On October 17, 2014—just three months before Nisman’s death—Stefanini vanished. His car was later found abandoned near his accountant’s office in Buenos Aires, blocks away from the address listed by Ferreiros as director of RODFA.

Argentine authorities are investigating Stefanini’s disappearance as a kidnapping, but they have not yet identified any suspects. The international law enforcement organization Interpol has issued the equivalent of a worldwide missing person notice for Stefanini.

Arroyo Salgado, Nisman’s ex-wife, had been in charge of the investigation into Stefanini’s disappearance until she was recused from the case in October due to her potential for bias following the revelation of the financial link between the missing entrepreneur and her late ex-husband. Arroyo Salgado has indicated that she will appeal that decision.

Murky Outlook

The leak of information provided in confidence by US authorities to their Argentine counterparts could complicate further cooperation between the United States and Argentina regarding the investigations into Nisman’s death and the money laundering that allegedly occurred using his New York bank account.

At the same time, the recent election of Mauricio Macri as Argentina’s president could help improve the country’s often-strained relations with the United States. Following Macri’s victory, US congressional Representatives Ed Royce (R-CA) and Eliot Engel (D-NY) called for the US to “prioritize” its relationship with Argentina, saying the two nations “should be natural partners.”

When Macri announced his intention not to appeal the decision voiding the 2013 Argentine-Iranian agreement, the Twitter account of the foreign affairs committee of the House of Representatives posted a message signed by Royce that read, “Glad to see #Argentina has scrapped this disturbing pact w/ #Iran.”

It remains to be seen, however, whether an improvement in overall US-Argentine relations would also include a deepening of cooperation on the Nisman case, especially given the previous breach of trust.

In fact, the US Department of Justice recently declined a request to turn over Nisman’s electronic communication records to Argentine prosecutor Viviana Fein, who was leading the investigation into the late prosecutor’s death. Judge Fabiana Palmaghini has since replaced Fein as head of the investigation, and has made it clear that she intends to closely examine the possibility that Nisman may have been murdered.

As several observers and commentators have previously noted, Nisman is only the latest in a long line of high-profile Argentine figures who died suddenly under mysterious circumstances. Controversy continues to surround many of these previous cases years after the investigations ended. And even the AMIA case itself remains unsolved, despite the passage of more than two decades since the attack.

This history suggests that a full accounting of Nisman’s death—whether it was tied to his work on the bombing or to the suspicious deposits, or whether those two threads of the story relate to one another—will not be forthcoming any time soon.

DHS Fleecing and Iffy Bookkeeping

Posted on by

DHS Reports Spending Only 1 Percent of its $1.4B Training Budget

Though Congress provides more than $1 billion in funds to train personnel at the Department of Homeland Security, DHS spends a small fraction of that on workforce training—at least according to its bookkeepers.

jehjohnsonmain.jpg

As an example of the iffy bookkeeping, auditors found that in fiscal 2014, Congress provided $1.4 billion for training, but the department reported spending only $1.9 million to the Office of Personnel Management. And as of August 2015, the DHS Office of the Chief Financial Officer could account for only $267 million in training expenditures in the prior year. Such lack of oversight on data quality, the Homeland Security inspector general found, meant the department reported only 1 percent of its training expenditures that year.

“DHS lacks reliable training cost information and data needed to make effective and efficient management decisions,” the IG concluded in a report released Wednesday. “It does not have an effective governance structure for its training oversight, including clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and delegated authorities” to oversee training programs, the watchdog wrote.

The difficulty the massive department would have in tracking training funds was predicted as far back as 2003, when the Government Accountability Office named human capital management as a high-risk area for the fledgling new department merging 22 agencies.

But DHS has failed to fully implement as many as 29 recommendations for improving training efficiencies made by several working groups, the new report said.

Among other problems, the IG found that the Transportation Security Administration did not report any training costs for January 2015, but after being questioned by IG staff, that agency reported $23 million in training expenditures.

DHS also lacks an oversight structure to monitor training after it transferred authority in 2012 to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and to departmental components. Such oversight is supposed to be supervised by the undersecretary for management, through the chief financial officer.

Inspector General John Roth recommended that DHS establish a better process for tracking training funds, set up an oversight structure and implement the remaining past efficiency recommendations.

Departmental managers agreed with the recommendations, with corrective actions underway for completion this year.

The actual Inspector General report is here.

Here is a previous interview with DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, where he gives clues that he is in way above his head.

Hillary’s Email Contained Operational Intel/Detail

Posted on by

Official: Withheld Clinton emails contain ‘operational’ intel, put lives at risk

Herridge/FNC: EXCLUSIVE: Highly classified Hillary Clinton emails that the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed too damaging to national security to release contain “operational intelligence” – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives,” a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents told Fox News.

 From Observer: (  CIA Officers names (including NOCs) in Hillary emails. Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies.)

The official, who was not authorized to speak on the record and was limited in discussing the contents because of their highly classified nature, was referring to the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails that the State Department announced Friday it could not release in any form, even with entire sections redacted.

The announcement fueled criticism of Clinton’s handling of highly sensitive information while secretary of state, even as the Clinton campaign continued to downplay the matter as the product of an interagency dispute over classification. But the U.S. government official’s description provides confirmation that the emails contained closely held government secrets. “Operational intelligence” can be real-time information about intelligence collection, sources and the movement of assets.

The official emphasized that the “TOP SECRET” documents were sent over an extended period of time — from shortly after the server’s 2009 installation until early 2013 when Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.

Separately, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the House intelligence committee, said the former secretary of state, senator, and Yale-trained lawyer had to know what she was dealing with.

“There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not,” he said. “Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security.”

Pompeo also suggested the military and intelligence communities have had to change operations, because the Clinton server could have been compromised by a third party.

“Anytime our national security team determines that there’s a potential breach, that is information that might potentially have fallen into the hands of the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or just hackers, that they begin to operate in a manner that assumes that information has in fact gotten out,” Pompeo said.

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, one day before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton claimed ignorance on the sensitivity of the materials and stressed that they weren’t marked.

“There is no classified marked information on those emails sent or received by me,” she said.

Clinton was pressed in the same ABC interview on her signed 2009 non-disclosure agreement which acknowledged that markings are irrelevant, undercutting her central explanation. The agreement states “classified information is marked or unmarked … including oral communications.”

Clinton pointed to her aides, saying: “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”

But according to national security legal experts, security clearance holders are required to speak up when classified information is not in secure channels.

“Everybody who has a security clearance has an individual obligation to protect the information,” said national security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr., who represented former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in the high-profile leak investigation regarding a New York Times reporter. “Just because somebody sends it to you … you can’t just turn a blind eye and pretend it never happened and pretend it’s unclassified information.”

These rules, known as the Code of Federal Regulations, apply to U.S. government employees with security clearances and state there is an obligation to report any possible breach by both the sender and the receiver of the information. The rules state: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”

The Clinton campaign is now calling for the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails to be released, but this is not entirely the State Department’s call since the intelligence came from other agencies, which have final say on classification and handling.

“The State Department has no authority to release those emails and I do think that Secretary Clinton most assuredly knows that,” Pompeo said.

Meanwhile, the release of other emails has revealed more about the high-level exchange of classified information on personal accounts. Among the latest batch of emails released by the State Department is an exchange between Clinton and then-Sen. John Kerry, now secretary of state. Sections are fully redacted, citing classified information – and both Kerry and Clinton were using unsecured, personal accounts.

Further, a 2009 email released to Judicial Watch after a federal lawsuit — and first reported by Fox News — suggests the State Department ‘s senior manager Patrick Kennedy was trying to make it easier for Clinton to check her personal email at work, writing to Clinton aide Cheryl Mills a “stand-alone separate network PC is … [one] great idea.”

“The emails show that the top administrator at the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, who is still there overseeing the response to all the inquiries about Hillary Clinton, was in on Hillary Clinton’s separate email network and system from the get-go,”  Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Kennedy is expected to testify this month before the Republican-led Benghazi Select Committee.

*** What is additionally terrifying is John Kerry not only emailed Hillary on his unprotected iPad but Kerry further admits that foreign espionage and intelligence services also likely hack and or found a way to intrude on Hillary’s server and emails along with any of those inside the State Department. Even Germany tapped John Kerry’s cell phone.

Obama Greased the System for Big Lobby/Money

Posted on by

Government Drags Us Back in Time – Because Cronies and Ideology Tell It To

Motley/RS: Government by ideological fantasy – at the expense of actual facts – is a terrible idea. So too is government of, by and for the donors. Far too often government regulators and bureaucrats ignore Reality – to tilt at ideological windmills. And WAY too often government becomes one giant stenographer for contributors – writing laws and regulations to accommodate their check-cutters’ every whim and wildest dream.

Thus does equal protection before the law – become special treatment for Friends of Government (FOG, if you will). Donors and dumb ideas are favored – at inordinate expense to the rest of us.

To wit: “green” “energy” (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, ethanol) is neither green nor energy. It’s far worse for the environment than traditional energy sources – that actually produce, you know, affordable energy. Governments here and all around the world have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this phony energy. It’s been a titanic failure – for decades.

Why has government continued to throw this copious coin out the window – to keep us locked into an uber-failed yesterday? Because their ideological fantasies trump Reality. Why else? Because donors get government money at dollars-on-the-pennies they donated. To wit: President Barack Obama and his Democrats threw $80 billion more at the fake “green energy” industry in the 2009 “Stimulus.” 80% of that money – went to Obama donors.

The more government gets involved – the less the private sector can advance. The more rapidly a sector is advancing – the bigger an impediment government is. Likely no sector is advancing more quickly than the Tech sector. Enter government.

The Obama Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has already done egregious damage there. To appease their ridiculous fantasies – and huge donors. About a year ago the Commission’s three unelected Democrat bureaucrats decided to go all the way back in time to1934 landline telephone law – and unilaterally impose it on the Internet. Behold Internet Reclassification – so as to impose the ridiculous Network Neutrality.

The Obama Administration did it – because donors asked for it. Donors like Google. No one did more to get President Obama elected and reelected – than Google. Just about no company swapped staff with the Obama Administration at such prodigious numbers – than did Google.

And after Google greased the skids for Obama – Obama greased the skids for Google. Google spent nearly the entirety of the 2000s trying and failing to get Net Neutrality passed in Congress. Because it is government forcing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to give uber-bandwidth-hogs like Google – unlimited free bandwidth. We the People didn’t want it – Congress couldn’t pass it. So Obama just issued a fiat – and gave it to them.

But the problem with buying support – is that the “supporters” rarely stay bought. Google is now channeling West Wing President Josiah Bartlet – “What’s next?” And most unfortunately, President Obama’s government stenographers have many, many responses to that request.

Here’s one: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has penned a defense of the next backwards-looking power grab – huge new backdoor mandates via television set-top-boxes. Which they have attempted to obfuscate – as a deregulation of set-top-boxes.

Set-top-boxes are the devices we lease from cable companies – to watch their television packages. Which we are doing to a lesser and lesser degree – as the marketplace has already created myriad ways for us to “cut the cord.” Meaning give up cable television – and the set-top-boxes – altogether.

The future (and increasingly the present) of television – isn’t boxes. It’s apps (and alternate hardware like Apple TV and Amazon Firestick). Netflix, Amazon Prime, Roku, Hulu and a host of other companies deliver you (via their apps) unlimited streaming TV and movie content – using only an Internet connection. No cable TV subscription required. And unlike programmed TV, you can watch whenever you want, wherever you want. So more and more people are cutting their cords.

Meanwhile, the government is yet again stuck in the past. The FCC is dubiously invoking a twenty-year-old law (and seriously, how unbelievably different was how we watched TV twenty-years ago?) – to “open” to competitors the collapsing set-top-box market. This is a terrible idea for a number of reasons.

It is just stupid from an evolutionary standpoint. This is like the government issuing mandates to “open” the horse-buggy industry – as Model T Fords are rolling with ever increasing frequency into our driveways and hearts. If you’re “helping” prop up yesterday’s technology – you aren’t helping.

This mandate forces cable companies to spend a LOT of money totally reconfiguring their networks – to accommodate the new boxes. A new configuration for each new box, most likely – because each box will most likely connect uniquely to each network. And cable companies have a LOT of proprietary information and content to protect – so they will have to spend EVEN MORE time and money reconfiguring so as to ensure its protection. For which we will inexorably pay in higher fees – on TV, and the other services cable companies provide (like Internet). All to make room for more devices – of which people want less.

And you will be trading the box lease – for the box purchase. Which requires more coin upfront. And unlike with the lease, when the next upgraded model comes out – you won’t get it for free. You will pay all over again. And given the rapid technological advancement – how often will that purchase have to happen again, and again, and…?

Think how quick is the smart phone tech turnover (which is a MUCH more intensive product). Where you just purchased the “latest” Google Android – only to almost immediately watch Google roll out the next Android. Does Google give you that next version for free? Of course not. Google won’t give you their latest set-top-box either.

Wait – Google wants to get into the going-out-of-business set-top-box business? You bet they do. So the Obama Administration is prepping to issue yet another fiat – to make Google’s wishes come true. Again.

Crony-infested and ideologically-blinded is no way to go through life, Son. It is also absolutely no way to run a government.

Obama Lies, has Jack Lew Doing the Same on Debt Crisis

Posted on by

Ted Cruz is right, but there is a caveat, a White House cartel inside the Washington cartel.

EXCLUSIVE: Secret Fed Docs Show Obama Misled Congress, Public During Debt Limit Crises

 Pollock/DCNF: Federal Reserve Bank of New York officials secretly conducted real-time exercises during the 2011 and 2013 debt-limit crisis that demonstrated the federal government could function during a temporary shutdown by prioritizing spending, even as Treasury Secretary Jack Lew publicly claimed many times that such efforts were “unworkable,” according to a new report by the House Financial Services Committee obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The staff report, to be released Tuesday, charges that Lew and other Obama administration officials deliberately misled Congress and the public during the federal budget and debt limit showdowns in both years. The committee will convene a public hearing on the report Feb. 2.

The report also states that the Obama administration crafted actual contingency plans to pay for Social Security and veterans benefits, as well as principal and interest on the national debt if the government was temporarily unable to borrow more money. The Committee concludes that over the last two years the Treasury Department has “obstructed” congressional efforts to get to the bottom of the administration’s real-time policy during the two showdowns.

The Constitution stipulates that only Congress can determine how much money the federal government can borrow. Presidents thus cannot unilaterally spend beyond congressional debt ceiling limits set. The committee — chaired by Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas — charged that during both confrontations, the Obama administration held the country’s creditworthiness “hostage” by claiming default was the only possibility if the debit ceiling was not raised.

“These internal documents show the Obama Administration took the nation’s creditworthiness and economy hostage in a cynical attempt to create a crisis so the president could get what he wanted during negotiations over the debt ceiling,” Hensarling said in a statement to be released with the report Tuesday.

 

The report also revealed that the Treasury Department did not publicly divulge its plans to prioritize payments “for the express purpose of creating market uncertainty in an effort to pressure Congress to acquiesce in the administration’s ‘no negotiation’ posture on the debt ceiling.”

Wisconsin Republican Rep. Sean Duffy, the financial services panel’s oversight subcommittee chairman, said the administration “manufactured a crisis to put politics ahead of economic stability.”

The massive, 322-page report chronicles frank, behind-the-scenes discussions among Federal Reserve Board and Federal Bank of New York officials as Congress debated whether to keep existing debt limits or allow Treasury to borrow more money. The House committee and the Treasury Department have been fighting a bitter, two-year battle over Federal Reserve documents.

The report states that “Treasury apparently directed the New York Fed not to answer valid congressional oversight inquiries because Treasury knew the answers would expose the dishonesty of the administration’s public statements.”

A Treasury Department spokesman told TheDCNF, “Treasury has been committed to working cooperatively with the Committee to provide it with the information it needs,” including providing it with the New York Fed documents. The report is based on 3,878 pages of internal documents the committee eventually acquired despite Treasury’s opposition. The panel finally obtained the documents by subpoena. The report contains 41 separate appendices.

The revelations will likely add new intensity to the long-running public debate on the proper level of federal spending as the 2016 election campaign accelerates with Monday’s Iowa presidential caucus and next week’s New Hampshire presidential primary. Obama administration officials repeatedly declared that a complete government shutdown with no partial or interim payments was the only alternative to congressional approval of an increased debt ceiling.

In testimony Oct. 13, 2013, before the Senate Finance Committee, for example, Lew said the government could not “pick and choose” the funding of individual government programs once the debt limit ceiling was reached.

“I do not believe there is a way to pick and choose on a broad basis. The system was not designed to be turned off selectively,” Lew said.

The Federal Reserve documents revealed in the report show the Obama administration was in fact prepared to pick and choose which payments to make “in order to protect the creditworthiness of the United States.”

An internal e-mail from an official in the New York Fed’s Financial Institution Supervision Group states that regardless of the congressional outcome, “Treasury is adamant they will make [Principal and Interest] payments. Not considering possibility of missing debt payments.”  The P&I payments are made to Treasury bond holders.

“At the same time that Treasury was insisting to Congress and the American people that prioritization is unworkable, Treasury and New York Fed officials were working behind the scenes on a prioritization plan,” the report charges.

In private, Federal Reserve Board Federal Reserve Bank of New York officials vigorously denounced the administration’s secrecy over its contingency planning, one calling it “crazy, counter-productive, and add[ing] risk to an already risky situation.”

Federal Reserve Governor Jerome H. Powell, for example, complained that the administration tactics were part of political brinkmanship. “Treasury wants to maximize pressure on Congress by limiting communications on contingency planning,” he said in an email.

The report noted that both the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Bank of New York had “grave concerns with Treasury’s political decision not to inform the public of the administration’s debt ceiling contingency plans.”

The Federal Reserve Board staff “strongly encouraged Treasury to reveal its plan in advance” so that the private sector could prepare properly for a debt ceiling event but Treasury officials were “very reluctant to do so,” according to the report.

The Federal Reserve documents also depict officials at the Federal Bank of New York twice engaging in intense “tabletop exercises” about how government agencies could operate under a spending limit.

A March 16, 2011, table-top exercise included an hour-by-hour simulation of how 29 governmental agencies and market players would react when the federal government reached its debt limit.

At the time, the federal government would be within $25 million of its $14.3 trillion budget limit. The Secretary of the Treasury would invoke the Federal Reserve Debt Ceiling Crisis procedures, which provide that the “The President and the Secretary of the Treasury meet with the Fed Chairman at noon and agree that the Federal Reserve should pursue actions to honor and settle SSI, veterans benefits and P&I payments.”  SSI refers to Social Security and disability payments.

A similar April 9, 2013, debt ceiling table-top exercise focused on a “scenario” in which “Treasury begins controlling the flow of payments” and in which ”SSI, veterans benefits and P&I payments [would] be prioritized over all other governmental obligations.” The debt ceiling was $16.3 trillion at the time of the second exercise.

The procedures also state that “based on direction from the President, Treasury will pay only selected type of payments and withhold other government payments.”

Both Moody’s and Goldman Sachs publicly suggested during the 2013 crisis that it was possible the government could assure markets by pledging to pay principal and interest, Social Social and veterans benefits.

When contacted by TheDCNF, the Treasury Department did not directly address the issue of prioritizing payments but forwarded an October 16, 2015 blog, which stated in part, “The New York Fed’s system would be technologically capable of continuing to make principal and interest payment,” but added, “this approach would be entirely experimental and create unacceptable risk to both domestic and global financial markets.”

Multiple think tanks, including the Mercatus Center, have released reports suggesting numerous alternatives to default if the debt limit ceiling is not increased.

The national debt limit has tripled under Obama and now stands at $18.9 trillion.