Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion

Two Formal Challenges to Pelosi’s Impeachment Inquiry Mission

Posted on by

You read it here, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is creating an off ramp to the early launch of the impeachment inquiry of President Trump. In previous months, Gerald Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has been on a quest to impeach listing all kinds of reasons to do so. Nothing was really sticking as far as Pelosi was concerned. But then came this phone call President Trump had with Ukraine that gave us a whistleblower and before all the facts and the complaint was released, Pelosi lit the impeach inquiry candle. Turns out all along, she knew about the call details and the whistleblower all due to Congressman Adam Schiff office secret work with authoring the whistleblower complaint in the first place. Deep state is getting deeper….
Meanwhile…..

Image result for congressman kevin mccarthy
Enter House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. He sent a letter to Pelosi challenging telling her to halt the whole inquiry thing because she is clearly not following rules, procedures and protocol. (I think she is doing that on purpose, read ‘off ramp)
In the McCarthy letter to Pelosi he demands answers to the following questions, which prove so far that Pelosi is not following procedures.

Those questions were as follows:

Do you intend to hold a vote of the full House authorizing our impeachment inquiry?
Do you intend to involve the full House in each critical step of this inquiry, including defining its scope and establishing its rules and procedures?
Do you intend to grant co-equal subpoena power to both the Chair and Ranking Member at the committee level?
Do you intend to require that all subpoenas be subject to a vote of the full committee at the request of either the Chair or Ranking Member?
Do you intend to provide the President’s counsel the right to attend all hearings and depositions?
Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to present evidence?
Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to object to the admittance of evidence?
Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to cross-examine witnesses?
Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to recommend a witness list?
Do you intend to refer all findings on impeachment to Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee, as prescribed by Rule X of the Rules of the House, or is Chairman Schiff in charge of leading the inquiry as reported in the press?

“By answering ‘no’ to any of the above, you would be acting in direct contradiction to all modern impeachment inquiries of a sitting president,” McCarthy wrote.

Okay, hold on because here comes Congressman Doug Collins.

Image result for congressman doug collins

Collins is the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, is telling a federal judge that the Democrats’ impeachment investigation has no legal basis per his amicus brief.

The amicus brief: doug.collins.amicus

(in part)

That part of the text of the amicus brief echos that of Minority Leader’s letter to Pelosi.

All the while, the whole Ukraine phone call thing the House Democrats are using to pull the trigger on impeachment inquiries is also falling apart. The whole Biden scandal continues to fester.

Stay tuned…

Gen. Flynn’s Lawyer Seeks 40 Categories of Evidence

Posted on by

Primer: Brady Doctrine is a law which requires the prosecution to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal case.

On Wednesday, the previously sealed Motion to Compel filed against federal prosecutors in the Michael Flynn case was made public with only minor redactions.

In her Motion to Compel, Powell catalogued 40 categories of evidence the government has refused to turn over. She seeks a court order requiring federal prosecutors to provide the withheld evidence under Brady and its progeny. Brady and its offshoots require prosecutors to disclose material exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defense team. And, as Judge Sullivan made clear during Tuesday’s hearing, that duty exists even though Flynn had already pleaded guilty and even though he had agreed that the government would not be required to provide him with further evidence.

Powell, though, must still establish that the evidence sought is Brady material. Judge Sullivan seemed skeptical of the relevance of some of the evidence Powell mentioned and how it bore on Flynn’s guilt for the offense of conviction, namely lying to FBI agents. But Powell parried well, noting, for instance, that evidence concerning the texts exchanged between former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ lawyer Lisa Page were impeachment evidence.

In another exchange, Powell stressed that recently disclosed evidence showed the government had concluded that Flynn was not a Russian or Turkish agent, and, in fact that Flynn had briefed the government before meeting with Turkish officials. That evidence was relevant to sentencing, Powell argued, because it negates prosecutors’ claim that they had foregone a FARA violation charge against Flynn. “That’s a good point,” Judge Sullivan concurred.

Powell will have a chance in her reply brief to detail how each piece of evidence sought is either exculpatory or serves as impeachment evidence. Here there’s an interesting twist: Powell seems poised to also argue that the 40 pieces of evidence requested are exculpatory (and thus Brady material), because they will show that “the entire prosecution should be dismissed for egregious government misconduct and long-time suppression of Brady material.”

Some of the evidence Powell seeks is already presumed by many to exist, such as FISA applications pertaining to Flynn and the original 302 written shortly after FBI agents interviewed Flynn about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. But other evidence Powell identifies reveals that she has skinned all the snakes involved in SpyGate and knows exactly what went down. For instance, Powell requested “any information, including recordings or 302s, about Joseph Mifsud’s presence and involvement in engaging or reporting on Mr. Flynn and Mifsud’s presence at the Russia Today dinner in Moscow on December 17, 2015.”

Also intriguing is Powell’s request for: “All payments, notes, memos, correspondence, and instructions by and between the FBI, CIA, or DOD with Stefan Halper—going back as far as 2014—regarding Michael Flynn, Svetlana Lokhova, Mr. Richard Dearlove (of MI6), and Professor Christopher Andrew (connected with MI5) and Halper’s compensation through the DOD Office of Net Assessment as evidenced by the whistleblower complaint of Adam Lovinger, addressed in our brief.”

What is fascinating about this request is that the uninformed will see the 2014 date as evidence that Powell is on a fishing expedition, while in reality, her bid for this information shows that Powell has in three short months pieced together more tiles in the mosaic of the Russia collusion fraud than Robert Mueller did in two years. (this is an in part summary from Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist)

*** Fox News Sunday | Fox News

Meanwhile:

A couple of days ago, “We know that Mr. Mueller got a letter from Mr. Rosenstein that allowed him to target Michael Flynn Jr., and there was significant pressure to enter a guilty plea while they were hiding all the evidence that showed he had not been an agent of Russia, that there were no Logan Act violations,” Powell told Hannity.

Hannity asked Powell about the possibility that Flynn took a plea deal in order to protect his son from being prosecuted. Powell did not confirm Hannity’s scenario, but suggested it was possible.

“When you put together the fact that Mr. Mueller got the letter authorizing him to target Michael Flynn Jr., and they had seized Michael Flynn Jr.’s computers and electronic devices and those things, it’s not too hard to imagine that that might have happened,” she said.

“I don’t want to speak now to things that are not a matter of public record, but stay tuned because more and more will become apparent as we proceed through the litigation.”

Nunes RICO Lawsuit v. Fusion GPS

Posted on by

This is a 3 part RICO case against Glenn Simpson, all things Fusion GPS and Campaign for Accountability, Inc..

Very interesting of the details that Nunes and his lawyer provide in detail. While Conngressman Nunes is suing for at least $9.9 million, it is not so much about an end result but more about the discovery process in the case. That means in layman’s terms, a document production requirement which is all the Republicans have been demanding of government agencies during the whole Russian collusion case. Government agencies, including the Department of Justice and the FBI for the most part have either slow-walked responses, redacted documents or have been completely non-responsive. In this type of lawsuit, where a jury is demanded, documents must be produced.

California Rep. Devin Nunes named to Trump's transition ...

Read the complaint here.

Meanwhile, Congressman Nunes could have a real ally in this lawsuit. He is one Bill Browder, a former U.S. citizen, now a citizen of Britain. You may remember Mr. Browder as he has been on the quest to have foreign government adopt the Magnitsky Act, a law fully adopted by the United States several years ago.

Northwest Research | & Covert Book Report

You may also remember that little meeting that got so much press that included Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner and Natalia Veselnitskaya. Fusion GPS did the same thing to Mr. Browder that Congressman Nunes is alleging in his complaint.

Following California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes’ $9.9M lawsuit against Fusion GPS over alleged “smear” tactics, businessman and Magnitsky Act advocate Bill Browder told Fox News that the opposition research firm behind the anti-Trump Steele dossier also targeted him with an organized misinformation campaign.

Browder is the CEO and co-founder of Hermitage Capital, which was once the largest foreign portfolio investor in Russia. He told Fox News that Fusion GPS and founder Glenn Simpson were working with Russians who wanted the Magnitsky Act repealed — and that they “played dirty.”

“It appears on a whole range of stories they are in the lying and smear campaigning business,” Browder said. “My experience does not look like an isolated incident. These guys play dirty, and I have seen it firsthand.”He continued: “I had an experience with Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS in spring 2016 where they were paid agents for individuals connected to the Russian government. They lied to journalists and other thought leaders in Washington about me and the Magnitsky case to have the act repealed.”

***

In part from the Washington Examiner:

Veselnitskaya was a Russian prosecutor, then performed government-related lobbying in the U.S. against the Magnitsky Act. Prevezon was a company alleged to have laundered fraudulent money exposed by Magnitsky, so Veselnitskaya hired BakerHostetler to help Prevezon in court — and the law firm hired Fusion GPS.

Russian lawyer questions why Mueller hasn't contacted her

Glenn Simpson, the opposition research firm’s founder, testified he started working with Veselnitskaya in 2014 and said “she would have arranged for Prevezon to pay Baker Hostetler which paid us.” Simpson knew the research he conducted opposing the Magnitsky Act, criticizing Magnitsky advocate and friend Bill Browder and defending Prevezon, made its way to Veselnitskaya. And Simpson met with Veselnitskaya the day before the Trump Tower meeting, the day of it, and the day after. Simpson claimed he didn’t know she was connected to the Kremlin and didn’t know about the Trump Tower meeting beforehand.

Veselnitskaya attended the meeting with a Russian translator and fellow Russian anti-Magnistky Act lobbyists and Prevezon case workers. Veselnitskaya presented a document echoing official Kremlin talking points criticizing the Magnitsky Act and attacking Browder and others by alleging financial misconduct in their support for Democrats. When Don Jr. asked for proof, she had none. The Russians also complained about U.S. sanctions imposed under the Magnitsky Act and Putin’s response banning U.S. adoption of Russian children. Trump associates expecting dirt on Clinton considered the meeting a waste of time. The media revealed the meeting’s existence in July 2017.

California Strikes Down Police Assistance Law

Posted on by

California has now driven a larger divide between the public and law enforcement. You can bet a few other states may follow the same tactic.

California’s new law drives a major wedge between police and the public (Photo – Screenshot – YouTube)

If you saw an officer in need of help… what would you do?

Most people would step in and offer assistance… no questions asked.

But in California’s latest move to further the divide between the police and the public, citizens would now be legally allowed to refuse to help a police officer who needs assistance.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed their newest anti-police bill into law on Tuesday, the Sacramento Bee reported. State leaders have said that it now allows citizens to avoid “an untenable moral dilemma.”

Moral dilemma? From assisting an officer with an arrest if he’s in need of help?  We get it. Maybe there shouldn’t be a fine or a jail sentence associated with choosing to not get involved. Perhaps the original law from the 1870’s is a bit outdated.

But what is this bill really saying?

Essentially, it’s driving a bigger wedge between officers and civilians.

People now are essentially told to let a cop fend for himself if he’s being overpowered by a dangerous victim. It affirms the decision to stand by and film or watch while a hero’s life is in danger.

The new bill would get rid of the old law – the California Posse Comitatus Act of 1872, which required a civilian to step in and assist an officer during an arrest if necessary. For those who ‘violated’ it, they could face up to a $1,000 fine.

9,999 times out of 10,000… an officer isn’t going to ask for an untrained bystander to step in and help. But sometimes it’s necessary… and it could mean the difference between life and death.

Let’s look at this objectively.

How many people were ever really charged with this misdemeanor? What Governor Newsom did was remind everyone that they have a choice — and basically push them to make the choice to carry on with their lives instead of getting involved.

Our question is… if this law had simply remained the way it was, how many people would have chosen to step in and help when they saw another human in need?

And how big of a drop-off rate would we see now that this bill is being pushed in the public eye? Will people see a police officer being attacked and because they don’t like cops, they choose to stand there and watch him die?

It brings back memories of the time when a bystander chose to broadcast an officer’s death to Facebook Live instead of putting down the phone and doing what they could to help.

Is this the country we want to live in?

Will protesters and anti-police ‘activists’ feel even more emboldened by their supposed morals?

The California State Sheriff’s Association said they were “unconvinced that this statute should be repealed.”

Of course. Though it may have stemmed from the days of slavery… this law is ultimately about doing what’s right and assisting a public servant in their time of need. Read more here.

 

Apply More Shame to Facebook

Posted on by

Okay, so without much media attention, YouTube was just fined $170 million for children’s privacy violations. Hello Google? WTH? This was a settlement by the way between Google and the Federal Trade Commission.

But what about Facebook and protecting our data? We have heard and read items about how casual Facebook is with out data. But hold on, there is more.

Primer: Cambridge Analytica was a cyber spy network with political operations and twisted tactics.

In part:

The company at the centre of the Facebook data breach boasted of using honey traps, fake news campaigns and operations with ex-spies to swing election campaigns around the world, a new investigation reveals.

Executives from Cambridge Analytica spoke to undercover reporters from Channel 4 News about the dark arts used by the company to help clients, which included entrapping rival candidates in fake bribery stings and hiring prostitutes to seduce them.

In one exchange, the company chief executive, Alexander Nix, is recorded telling reporters: “It sounds a dreadful thing to say, but these are things that don’t necessarily need to be true as long as they’re believed.” More here.

Meanwhile:

Techcrunch: Hundreds of millions of phone numbers linked to Facebook accounts have been found online.

The exposed server contained more than 419 million records over several databases on users across geographies, including 133 million records on U.S.-based Facebook users, 18 million records of users in the U.K., and another with more than 50 million records on users in Vietnam.

But because the server wasn’t protected with a password, anyone could find and access the database.

Each record contained a user’s unique Facebook ID and the phone number listed on the account. A user’s Facebook ID is typically a long, unique and public number associated with their account, which can be easily used to discern an account’s username.

But phone numbers have not been public in more than a year since Facebook restricted access to users’ phone numbers.

TechCrunch verified a number of records in the database by matching a known Facebook user’s phone number against their listed Facebook ID. We also checked other records by matching phone numbers against Facebook’s own password reset feature, which can be used to partially reveal a user’s phone number linked to their account.

Some of the records also had the user’s name, gender and location by country.

fb 3 2

This is the latest security lapse involving Facebook data after a string of incidents since the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which saw more than 80 million profiles scraped to help identify swing voters in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Since then the company has seen several high-profile scraping incidents, including at Instagram, which recently admitted to having profile data scraped in bulk.

This latest incident exposed millions of users’ phone numbers just from their Facebook IDs, putting them at risk of spam calls and SIM-swapping attacks, which relies on tricking cell carriers into giving a person’s phone number to an attacker. With someone else’s phone number, an attacker can force-reset the password on any internet account associated with that number.

Sanyam Jain, a security researcher and member of the GDI Foundation, found the database and contacted TechCrunch after he was unable to find the owner. After a review of the data, neither could we. But after we contacted the web host, the database was pulled offline.

Jain said he found profiles with phone numbers associated with several celebrities.

Facebook spokesperson Jay Nancarrow said the data had been scraped before Facebook cut off access to user phone numbers.

“This data set is old and appears to have information obtained before we made changes last year to remove people’s ability to find others using their phone numbers,” the spokesperson said. “The data set has been taken down and we have seen no evidence that Facebook accounts were compromised.”

But questions remain as to exactly who scraped the data, when it was scraped from Facebook and why.

Facebook has long restricted developers‘ access to user phone numbers. The company also made it more difficult to search for friends’ phone numbers. But the data appeared to be loaded into the exposed database at the end of last month — though that doesn’t necessarily mean the data is new.

This latest data exposure is the most recent example of data stored online and publicly without a password. Although often tied to human error rather than a malicious breach, data exposures nevertheless represent an emerging security problem.

In recent months, financial giant First American left data exposed, as did MoviePass and the Senate Democrats.