Category Archives: IRS White House Collusion

Low Information Millionaires Donate to Both Sides

Posted on by

Wealthy people make stupid political decisions, decisions good for their business and it stops there such that their friendly and personal relationships makes it difficult to counter.

If you seek some names with big money not often known, then read on.

Hillary Clinton’s Mega-Donors Are Also Funding Jeb Bush

Racetrack owners, bankers, and chicken kings: Meet the ultra-rich bankrolling the Bush and Clinton dynasties. A special report by Vocativ and The Daily Beast.

For some wealthy donors, it doesn’t matter who takes the White House in 2016—as long as the president’s name is Clinton or Bush.

More than 60 ultra-rich Americans have contributed to both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton’s federal campaigns, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by Vocativ and The Daily Beast. Seventeen of those contributors have gone one step further and opened their wallets to fund both Bush and Clinton’s 2016 ambitions.

After all, why support just Hillary Clinton or just Jeb Bush when you can hedge your bets and donate to both? This seems to be the thinking of a group of powerful men and women—racetrack owners, bankers, media barons, chicken magnates, hedge funders (and their spouses). Some of them have net worths that can eclipse the GDPs of small countries.

Larry Noble, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, told The Daily Beast that it’s a common practice among a small number of people.

“Some of them will say they believe in the process, but the truth is you usually see them giving to people who will be most helpful to them if [the politician] gets into office,” he said. “They are not necessarily Republicans or Democrats, they are business people first.”

Some of them said personal connections are driving the double donations. Many work in industries that depend on the federal government for their continued operation. A few have had brushes with the law. One donor said he’s soured on Hillary, and is now on Team Jeb. Another claimed that he gave to Clinton by mistake.

John Tyson, chairman of Tyson Foods, is a long-time—and promiscuous—political player. This year alone, his company spent half a million dollars lobbying Congress on everything from immigration reform and fuel taxes to food safety regulations. He himself has given $25,000 each to the political action committees supporting Clinton and Bush’s 2016 candidacies, according to the data parsed by Vocativ.

In the late 1990s Tyson was embroiled in political scandal when then-Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy was accused of illegally accepting gifts from major food corporations—several of which were given by Tyson, then a senior employee. Espy was acquitted, and John Tyson was granted immunity in exchange for his cooperation.

The company eventually paid a $6 million settlement to the government, and two Tyson Foods employees were sentenced to prison. (Both were later pardoned by President Clinton.)

Until not too long ago, David Stevens, the CEO of the real estate lobbying group the Mortgage Bankers Association, was in the government himself. Stevens served in the Obama administration as the assistant secretary for housing and as Federal Housing Administration (FHA) commissioner at the Department of Housing and Urban Development from July 2009 to April 2011.

But that doesn’t mean he’s completely onboard with his fellow administration alum.

“I want to focus on candidates who best represent issues of housing and issues important to me and are not extreme, especially on the social issues that are important to me,” he said.

Stevens has given $2,700 to Hillary For America and $1,000 to Jeb 2016. He said he has watched with great concern about the increased polarization of both parties.

But at the end of the day, Stevens conceded it’s also about access.

“While [Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush] don’t make commitments, obviously, I want to make sure my views are presented to them, because they are considered more center-left or center-right,” he said.

Richard Parsons, the former head of Time Warner and now a senior adviser at Providence Equity Partners Inc., has donated the maximum $2,700 to both the Clinton and Bush presidential campaigns.

His résumé reflects dual political loyalties.

He’s served every Republican president since Richard Nixon and in 1997 was appointed to a task force by President George W. Bush to help study the best way to overhaul social security.

However, he also advised then-President-Elect Obama as part of the Economic Transition Team in 2008. Parsons did not return attempts for comment.

James R. Borynack, the owner of Wally Findlay Galleries—noted for its long history and expertise in European art—was shy about saying why he wasn’t choosing sides.

“[Borynack] has no detailed comments at this time, other than to support both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush equally as presidential candidates,” a spokeswoman said.

Two Barclays employees have each donated $2,700—the legal maximum—to both the Clinton and Bush campaigns. One is Brett Tejpaul, a managing director at Barclays Capital who has also given $25,000 to the Jeb-affiliated super-PAC Right to Rise. The other is Robert Foresman, head of Barclays’s business in Russia.

Foresman’s Russia ties include the state-owned energy company that is one of Putin’s biggest levers against the West. Russia’s state-owned Gazprom provides critical gas to nearly two dozen European countries—and has shut off energy to countries in dispute with Russia. In the early 2000s, Foresman was nominated as a candidate to the board of directors of Gazprom, but was never actually appointed to the board, according to the company’s website.

Double donors Shawn Seipler, CEO of the nonprofit Clean the World Global, and textile magnate James Richman both make issues of economic justice central to their public presence. Richman is part of the Patriotic Millionaires, a left-leaning group of more than 200—you guessed it—millionaires who vow to support legislation to reduce income inequality.

Michael Granoff, a principal at Maniv Energy Capital, was once a strong supporter of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Granoff worked on Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in the early ’90s and donated to Hillary Clinton’s Senate and 2008 presidential campaign.

But Granoff but has since soured on the Democratic Party’s foreign policy decisions—particularly on Iran. And that’s led to a change of heart about supporting the former Secretary of State.

“I have nothing but continuing admiration for Hillary Clinton and her lifetime commitment to serving the public,” he wrote in a February The Times of Israel blog post. “But she deeply disappointed me recently when she aligned herself with the Administration’s threat to veto a Congressional bill to strengthen Iranian sanctions.”

Granoff said his post only rings more true now. He’s made his devotion to Jeb clear by donating $2,700 to his campaign and $25,000 to Right to Rise, according to Vocativ’s analysis of donors’ data.

The mix of donations also exposed a seemingly common practice of wealthy individuals donating at the request of clients and friends.

One Wall Street donor, who asked to remain anonymous because he considered the donation to Hillary “embarrassing,” said he gave money to her Senate race after a bundler friend asked him for a contribution. He noted he asked the bundler friend to donate to a Republican in return.

Robert Burlington, a prominent Florida attorney whose firm counts Exxon Mobil, Union Labor Life Insurance Company, and Merck as clients, told The Daily Beast that his donations to the candidates also had more to do with personal relationships than politics.

“My donations arose from a request from client (Clinton) and from a friend (Bush), rather than my affiliation with either party. But for the relationships with my client and my friend, respectively, I would not have donated to any candidate,” he said, adding that he and his wife prefer to donate to children’s charities.

Burlington said that while he doesn’t plan to give any more money to any candidate, he will quietly root for Bush.

“He was a strong leader of Florida while he was our state’s governor, and he has integrity,” he said. “I will not be too disappointed, however, if Hillary Clinton is elected because she has relevant experience and we will benefit from having a woman as president.”

At least one donor initially claimed to not remember the Clinton donation.

“I never donated to Hillary,” said Bradford Freeman, a major fundraiser for both George W. Bush presidential campaigns.

Reminded of his $2,300 donation in 2007, he said, “Well, that would have been Hillary against Obama [in the primary]…I don’t recall, but I may have.”

In fairness, his one time donation to Hillary might be forgettable after the $1 million he gave Right to Rise.

Freeman, whose investment firm Freeman Spogli won a $50 million commitment from the Florida pension system during Bush’s tenure (and paid the former governor $45,000 for a speech after he left office, according to The New York Times), told The Daily Beast he was all in for the former Florida governor.   There is much more, click here to read the rest of the story.

Stimulus Money Fraud in Maryland

Posted on by

TheHill.com:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) wants the White House to look at unspent money from the 2009 stimulus package instead of asking Congress for a new fiscal package.

President Barack Obama on Saturday night wrote to congressional leaders urging them to pass legislation extending tax cuts and add new spending to prevent “hundreds of thousands” teacher layoffs, among other cuts. Obama said that without such measures the economy could “slide backwards.”

Hoyer said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that there is “spending fatigue” across the country and that he is encouraging the administration to look at last year’s $787 billion stimulus package to see if some money can be redirected.

“I have asked the White House to look at the package we already passed,” Hoyer said. “I personally believe if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act we could apply to this immediate need.”

***

Has one wondering now, does it not?

IG Finds Extensive Abuse of Stimulus Energy Efficiency Funds

Maryland contractors’ directors used grant funds to renovate home, donate to child’s school, hike executive pay

 

FreeBeacon: Officials at a pair of government contractors routinely overbilled the Energy Department and used government funds for personal expenses such as home renovation and donations to an executive’s child’s school, according to federal watchdogs.

Those were just a few of the numerous improper expenditures of grant funds under a DOE weatherization program funded by federal taxpayers and administered by the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD).

“Weak fiscal controls over subgrantees, combined with deficiencies in subgrantee accounting systems, have led to the Program funding improper payments to local agencies rather than furthering the Program’s goals of installing energy efficiency retrofits for low-income families,” DOE’s inspector general said in a report released on Tuesday.

The report accuses the contractors, C&O Conservation and Maryland Energy Conservation (MEC), of “unethical accounting practices” and warns, “in the absence of immediate improvements in financial controls, the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse is increased.”

The two contractors together received more than $15 million in taxpayer funds through the weatherization program. In addition to illicit financial practices, the report raises concerns about the two contractors’ “less-than-arm’s-length business arrangements.”

According to the report, M&O routinely overbilled DHCD for services related to DOE weatherization grants partly funded by the 2009 stimulus bill, which set aside $5 billion for weatherization grants to state agencies.

The IG examined just 80 of C&O’s 1,135 federally funded weatherization projects. It identified 57 examples of the company charging excessive fees for its services or inflating the hourly rates for which it billed the DHCD.

The report also identified a host of unallowable billings under the program, including maintenance of a C&O director’s personal vehicle, a $4,000 donation to a director’s child’s school, and “about $8,000 in bad debt expenses related to reimbursement claims that C&O had written off and then charged to the Program.”

“C&O used Program funds for the personal benefit of inside directors,” the IG wrote. “Of great concern, we found that construction on a C&O inside director’s home was funded in part with Program funds.”

C&O and MEC employees took part in insulation and drywall installation “training,” they told the IG. That training entailed renovating the home of a C&O director and charging related expenses to the weatherization program.

The relationship between the two contractors is also of concern, the IG found. “C&O and MEC’s boards of directors included employees and multiple related family members,” the report found.

“Given this lack of independence on the boards, family members and executive employees had the ability to substantially influence the actions of their respective organizations, such as approving their own compensation or conducting business with inside directors and related parties.”

Due in part to those apparent conflicts, excessive compensation was a particular issue of concern for the contractors. One C&O director who also served as an “executive employee” received a 79 percent raise in 2012, which the IG deemed “unreasonable under OMB cost principles.”

It also questioned compensation for an MEC director’s spouse, who received “an hourly rate more than 50 percent higher than that of the nearest counterpart in the organization” while performing administrative work from home.

MEC declined to comment on the report. C&O did not return a request for comment by press time.

Free Speech Punished at Christian University

Posted on by

TCU student punished for criticizing Islam, Baltimore riots

Todd Starnes FNC: All it took was 140 characters for Texas Christian University to suspend a conservative student who posted a series of social networking posts that insulted the Islamic State, the Baltimore rioters and Mexicans.

TCU banned Harry Vincent from most campus activities, ordered him to perform 60 hours of community service and attend a diversity training class.

The 19-year-old, who is a member of the College Republicans and the Young Americans for Freedom, said he was told by the university that his conservative views were “inappropriate.”

It sounds to me like Harry Vincent is guilty of being a Christian Conservative white guy – and on a university campus that’s a crime worthy of death penalty.

“They’re trying to make me out to be the classic bigoted hateful white male,” Harry told me in a telephone interview from his home in Maryland. “That’s the complete opposite of what I am.”

The university’s only public comment came in a prepared statement noting “When student’s conduct violates the university’s behavioral standards, they are subject to a disciplinary process, and will be held accountable for their actions.”

On April 29 TCU sent Harry a letter accusing him of violating the university’s code of student conduct – specifically he was accused of “infliction of bodily or emotional arm” and “disorderly conduct.”

The charges stemmed from a half dozen tweets he had posted online referencing radical Islam along with a Facebook message about the Baltimore riots.

“These hoodrat criminals in Baltimore need to be shipped off and exiled to the sahara desert,” he wrote. “Maybe then they’ll realize how much we provide for them (welfare, college tuition, Obama phone’s, medicare, etc.”

In regards to Islam he wrote, “This is clearly not a religion of peace.”

He also used the word “beaner” a derogatory term to describe Mexicans.

A former middle school classmate took great offense at Harry’s tweets and launched what became a Twitter lynch mob. The unnamed woman, who has no ties to TCU, urged her followers to contact the university and complain.

“This a**hole has been posting racist and disgusting comments on Twitter/Facebook,” she wrote on Tumblr. “When I confronted him about it, he referred to me as an ‘Islamic s**thead.”

The university took swift action. Associate Dean of Students Glory Robinson ordered Harry to apologize for what he had written on his private social networking pages.

“Dean Robinson said I was going to need to write an apology letter and a letter stating what sort of punishment I thought I deserved,” Harry told me. “She told me not to use Freedom of Speech as a defense – or else I would be more severely punished.”

To make a long story short – Harry hired a lawyer and appealed.

“My appeal board consisted of one very flamboyant male teacher and the head of the inclusiveness and diversity department,” he said. “It wasn’t a very unbiased board at all that heard my case.”

As expected – the university rejected his appeal and sent Harry a certified letter.

“The choices you made caused harm to other individuals,” the university wrote. “These types of comments are not acceptable at TCU and directly contradict our mission of being ‘ethical leaders and responsible citizens in a global community.’”

Harry said he was told that he had to say he was guilty before the university actually found him guilty.

“Dean Robinson believes I am somehow damaged – she thinks there’s something wrong with me because of what I put out there on social media,” he said. “She told me how my conservatives views were inappropriate.”

While he stands by his beliefs about Islamic radicals and the Baltimore rioters, Harry told me he regrets the foul language he used – as well as the unintentional Mexican slur “beaner.”

“I did not know that word was such a hurtful word,” he said. “I do regret that one because I do realize that could have caused harm to some people.”

Harry said he called his online attacker a “s***head” after she bashed the  Armed Forces and wrote that America deserved what happened on 9/11.

“Any red-blooded American’s blood would have boiled at the sight of what she wrote,” he said. “I let my anger get the best of me.”

It sounds to me like Harry Vincent is guilty of being a Christian Conservative white guy – and on a university campus that’s a crime worthy of death penalty.

Harry isn’t sure if he’s going back to TCU. Should he agree to their demands – the 19-year-old would be on disciplinary probation until 2018 – the year he graduates.

“I’m thinking about enlisting in the Marines,” he said.

But one thing is certainly – Harry is not backing down.

“I’m not going to stand down and watch an institution throw away the Constitution and throw away basic God-given rights,” he said.

TCU is a private school and as such they are not bound by the First Amendment. However, as a Christian school they ought to be bound by the Good Book.

Harry Vincent spoke his mind – but instead of honoring his free speech – TCU chose to silence this young man and capitulated to the fury of a Twitter lynch mob.

The irony is that Harry received a stiffer punishment than a lot of the street thugs who terrorized Baltimore.

What About Those Stingrays? You Cool With This?

Posted on by

Surveillance Nation is here today and are you good with this?

Is Microsoft reading YOUR emails? Windows 10 may threaten your privacy, watchdogs warn

Windows 10:  DailyMailUK

Within 45 pages of terms and conditions, the privacy information suggests Microsoft begins watching from when an account is created, saving customer’s basic information, passwords and credit card details, Newsweek reported.

The tech giant is also said to save Bing search queries and conversations with Cortana, as well as lists of which websites and apps users visit and the contents of private emails and files, as well as their handwriting.   The privacy statement says: ‘your typed and handwritten words are collected.’

The policy adds that Microsoft collects information about a user’s speech and handwriting to ‘help improve and personalise our ability to correctly recognise your input,’ while information from their contacts book is used, such as names and calendar events ‘to better recognise people and events when you dictate messages or documents’.

Cortana, for example, makes use of information about who a user calls on their phone, plus data from their emails and texts, calendar and contacts, as well as their web history and location.  Microsoft says that data is collected to provide users with a more personalised service and better character recognition, for example, but may also be used for targeted adverting, meaning it may share information with third parties.

The company assigns each of its users a unique advertising ID so it does not reveal what they ‘say in email, chat, video calls or voice mail, or your documents, photos or other personal files to target ads to you.’

But it has still come under fire from privacy campaigners.

Online privacy pressure group, European Digital Rights (EDRi) told The Times that Microsoft’s policy was ‘not only bad news for privacy. Your free speech rights can also be violated on an ad hoc basis.’

Microsoft ‘basically grants itself very broad rights to collect everything you do, say and write with on your devices in order to sell more targeted advertising or to sell your data to third parties.’

Kirsten Fiedler, EDRi’s Managing Director told MailOnline: ‘Unlike Microsoft’s promise, the company’s new 45 page-long terms of service are not straightforward at all.

‘Online companies should finally start explaining their terms in an understandable manner so that we can make informed choices about the services we want to use.

 

Stingray surveillance sparks privacy concerns in Congress

USAToday: WASHINGTON — Members of Congress are increasingly trying to rein in a secretive federal law enforcement program that uses devices known as Stingrays to capture cellphone data from unsuspecting Americans.

“They are spying on law-abiding citizens as we speak,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who recently won House approval of a measure to end the program.

The box-shaped Stingray devices are the size of small suitcases, cost about $400,000 to buy and operate, and are usually attached to the cars of federal, state or local law enforcement agents. They mimic cellphone towers, tricking phones within a certain radius to connect to and feed data to police about users’ locations, text messages, calls and emails.

At least a half-dozen federal agencies — including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement — use the technology, which can penetrate the walls of a home, apartment complex or office.

Police say the technology — which can also be attached to planes — helps them catch criminals by tracking their movements and actions. But critics complain that it violates the constitutional rights of innocent citizens whose cellphone data is also seized, often without a warrant.

At least 53 law enforcement agencies in 21 states also use Stingrays or similar devices, according to research by the American Civil Liberties Union. Local police typically buy the devices with grants from the federal government and sign agreements with the FBI not to disclose their use, said ACLU attorney Nathan Wessler.

A June 2014 investigation by USA TODAY and Gannett newspapers found that an increasing number of local and state police agencies were deploying Stingrays and other technology to secretly collect cellphone data from suspected criminals and law-abiding Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing.

“It’s become clear how staggeringly widespread the use of this technology is,” Wessler said. “We’ve been heartened to see that some members of Congress are taking the privacy concerns quite seriously.”

The House this summer passed, by voice vote, a Justice Department spending bill that included Issa’s amendment to bar funding for the use of Stingrays without a warrant. Issa said he won’t stop there, in part because the Senate is unlikely to pass that measure .

“I will use additional opportunities to get it done,” Issa told USA TODAY. “Right now, law enforcement won’t even tell us how many Stingrays they have. The only way to protect the American people is to change the law.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, also are targeting the Stingray program in a broader bill called the GPS Act. The legislation would require law enforcement agents to obtain warrants before tracking Americans’ locations by using Stingray-type devices or tapping into cellphones, laptops, or GPS navigation systems.

“I don’t see how you can use a Stingray without it raising very substantial privacy issues,” Wyden told USA TODAY. “I want police to be able to track dangerous individuals and their locations, but it ought to be done with court oversight under the Fourth Amendment.”

The FBI has said it has a policy of obtaining warrants before using Stingray devices, although it has broad exceptions, including one that allows the technology to be used in public places where the agency believes people shouldn’t have an expectation of privacy.

“It’s how we find killers, it’s how we find kidnappers, it’s how we find drug dealers, it’s how we find missing children, it’s how we find pedophiles,” FBI Director James Comey told reporters in Charlotte. last fall. “It’s work you want us to be able to do.”

Chaffetz is also using his position as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to gather information as part of an investigation into the use of stingrays, said his spokesman, M.J. Henshaw.

At the same time, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the panel, have been pressing the Department of Justice for answers about Stingray practices and policies. Sen. Bill Nelson, R-Fla., has also called on the Federal Communications Commission to review how the devices are used.

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said the agency is reviewing its policies for the use of Stingray devices. He said he didn’t know when the review would be done.

“With regards to this technology, the Department of Justice is in the process of examining its policies to ensure they reflect our continued commitment to conducting our vital missions while according appropriate respect for privacy and civil liberties,” said spokesman Patrick Rodenbush.

While the Justice Department reviews its policies, states have begun passing their own laws to ban state and local police from using Stingrays without a warrant.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a ban in May after legislation was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the state Legislature. In addition to requiring police to obtain a warrant before using Stingray devices, the law says police must quickly delete any data collected on people who were not targets of a criminal investigation.

Similar laws have been passed in Virginia and Utah and are being considered in California, New York and Texas.

“The American people are looking for a balance between security and liberty,” Issa said. “After 9/11, we moved too far towards security. We need to move back toward liberty.”

Garland Shooters, Fast and Furious, the FBI

Posted on by

Still there is this operation known as Fast and Furious concocted by the ATF that lives for real….TODAY.

No one at the FBI, the ATF and DHS is really talking but some investigative reporters and a Senator are asking the right questions.

Assailant in Garland, Texas, attack bought gun in 2010 under Fast and Furious operation

by Richard Serranno

Five years before he was shot to death in the failed terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, Nadir Soofi walked into a suburban Phoenix gun shop to buy a 9-millimeter pistol.

At the time, Lone Wolf Trading Co. was known among gun smugglers for selling illegal firearms. And with Soofi’s history of misdemeanor drug and assault charges, there was a chance his purchase might raise red flags in the federal screening process.

Inside the store, he fudged some facts on the form required of would-be gun buyers.

What Soofi could not have known was that Lone Wolf was at the center of a federal sting operation known as Fast and Furious, targeting Mexican drug lords and traffickers. The idea of the secret program was to allow Lone Wolf to sell illegal weapons to criminals and straw purchasers, and track the guns back to large smuggling networks and drug cartels.

Instead, federal agents lost track of the weapons and the operation became a fiasco, particularly after several of the missing guns were linked to shootings in Mexico and the 2010 killing of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona.

Soofi’s attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.

As the owner of a small pizzeria, the Dallas-born Soofi, son of a Pakistani American engineer and American nurse, would not have been the primary focus of federal authorities, who back then were looking for smugglers and drug lords.

He is now.

In May, Soofi and his roommate, Elton Simpson, burst upon the site of a Garland cartoon convention that was offering a prize for the best depiction of the prophet Muhammad, something offensive to many Muslims. Dressed in body armor and armed with three pistols, three rifles and 1,500 rounds of ammunition, the pair wounded a security officer before they were killed by local police.

A day after the attack, the Department of Justice sent an “urgent firearms disposition request” to Lone Wolf, seeking more information about Soofi and the pistol he bought in 2010, according to a June 1 letter from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, to U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch.

Though the request did not specify whether the gun was used in the Garland attack, Justice Department officials said the information was needed “to assist in a criminal investigation,” according to Johnson’s letter, also reviewed by The Times.

The FBI so far has refused to release any details, including serial numbers, about the weapons used in Garland by Soofi and Simpson. Senate investigators are now pressing law enforcement agencies for answers, raising the chilling possibility that a gun sold during the botched Fast and Furious operation ended up being used in a terrorist attack against Americans.

Among other things, Johnson is demanding to know whether federal authorities have recovered the gun Soofi bought in 2010, where it was recovered and whether it had been discharged, according to the letter. He also demanded an explanation about why the initial seven-day hold was placed on the 2010 pistol purchase and why it was lifted after 24 hours.

Asked recently for an update on the Garland shooting, FBI Director James B. Comey earlier this month declined to comment. “We’re still sorting that out,” he said.

Officials at the Justice Department and the FBI declined to answer questions about whether the 9-millimeter pistol was one of the guns used in the Garland attack or seized at Soofi’s apartment.

It remains unclear whether Soofi’s 2010 visit to Lone Wolf is a bizarre coincidence or a missed opportunity for federal agents to put Soofi on their radar years before his contacts with Islamic extremists brought him to their attention.

Though Islamic State militants have claimed to have helped organize the Garland attack, U.S. officials are still investigating whether Soofi and Simpson received direct support from the group or were merely inspired by its calls for violence against the West.

Comey suggested that the attack fits the pattern of foreign terrorist groups indoctrinating American citizens through the Internet. He referred to it as the “crowdsourcing of terrorism.”

In a handwritten letter apparently mailed hours before the attack, Soofi said he was inspired by the writings of Islamic cleric Anwar Awlaki, an American citizen killed in a 2011 U.S. drone strike in Yemen.

“I love you,” Soofi wrote to his mother, Sharon Soofi, “and hope to see you in eternity.” In a telephone interview, Sharon Soofi described the letter and said her son had been shot twice in the head and once in the chest, according to autopsy findings she received.

At the time of the 2010 gun purchase, Soofi ran a Phoenix pizza parlor. His mother said that was about the same time he met Simpson, who worked for Soofi at the restaurant. They later shared an apartment, a short drive from the Lone Wolf store.

Reached by telephone, Andre Howard, owner of Lone Wolf, denied that his store sold the gun to Soofi. “Not here,” Howard said before hanging up.

Sharon Soofi said her son had told her he wanted the pistol for protection because his restaurant was in a “rough area.” She said he also acquired an AK-47 assault rifle at the end of last year or early this year, when authorities believe he and Simpson were plotting an attack on the Super Bowl in Arizona.

“I tried to convince him that, what in the world do you need an AK-47 for?” she said in a telephone interview. Soofi told her they practiced target shooting in the desert. Her younger son, Ali Soofi, was living with his brother and Simpson at the time, she said, but left after becoming frightened by the weapons, ammunition and militant Islamist literature.

She blamed Simpson for radicalizing her son, who she said had no history of religious extremism. A month before Soofi bought the pistol, Simpson was indicted on charges of lying to the FBI about his plans to travel to Somalia and engage in “violent jihad,” according to federal court documents.

Simpson was jailed until March 2011 and convicted of making false statements. But the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove the false statements were connected to international terrorism. Simpson was released and placed on probation.

After the Garland attack, the FBI arrested a third man, Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, and charged him with planning the Garland attack. At a detention hearing on June 16, prosecutors and an FBI agent provided details about the plot, but avoided discussing the history of the firearms.

Sharon Soofi said she found her son’s letter in her post office box. It was dated the Saturday before the attack, and postmarked in Dallas on Monday, the day after the assault, suggesting he dropped it in the mailbox before he and Simpson arrived in Garland. “In the name of Allah,” the letter began, “I am sorry for the grief I have caused.”

He referred to “those Muslims who are being killed, slandered, imprisoned, etc. for their religion,” and concluded, “I truly love you, Mom, but this life is nothing but shade under the tree and a journey. The reality is the eternal existence in the hereafter.”