|
||
|
Category Archives: The Denise Simon Experience
2 Iranians Indicted for Conducting Surveillance in Chicago
Two Individuals Charged for Acting as Illegal Agents of the Government of Iran
An indictment was returned today charging Ahmadreza Mohammadi-Doostdar, 38, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen, and Majid Ghorbani, 59, an Iranian citizen and resident of California, with allegedly acting on behalf of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran by conducting covert surveillance of Israeli and Jewish facilities in the United States, and collecting identifying information about American citizens and U.S. nationals who are members of the group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK).
The charges were announced by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Demers, U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu for the District of Columbia, and Acting Executive Assistant Director Michael McGarrity of the FBI’s National Security Branch.
“The National Security Division is committed to protecting the United States from individuals within our country who unlawfully act on behalf of hostile foreign nations,” said Assistant Attorney General Demers. “Doostdar and Ghorbani are alleged to have acted on behalf of Iran, including by conducting surveillance of political opponents and engaging in other activities that could put Americans at risk. With their arrest and these charges, we are seeking to hold the defendants accountable.”
“This indictment demonstrates the commitment of the Department of Justice to hold accountable agents of foreign governments who act illegally within the United States, especially where those agents are conducting surveillance of individuals and Constitutionally-protected activities in this country,” said Jessie K. Liu, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.
“This alleged activity demonstrates a continued interest in targeting the United States, as well as potential opposition groups located in the United States,” said Acting Executive Assistant Director McGarrity. “The FBI will continue to identify and disrupt those individuals who seek to engage in unlawful activity, on behalf of Iran, on US soil.”
The indictment charged Doostdar and Ghorbani with knowingly acting as agents of the government of Iran without prior notification to the Attorney General, providing services to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions, and conspiracy. Both defendants were arrested on Aug. 9, pursuant to criminal complaints issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Those complaints were unsealed today.
According to the indictment, in or about July 2017, Doostdar traveled to the United States from Iran in order to collect intelligence information about entities and individuals considered by the government of Iran to be enemies of that regime, including Israeli and Jewish interests, and individuals associated with the MEK, a group that advocates the overthrow of the current Iranian government.
On or about July 21, 2017, Doostdar is alleged to have conducted surveillance of the Rohr Chabad House, a Jewish institution located in Chicago, including photographing the security features surrounding the facility.
On or about Sept. 20, 2017, Ghorbani is alleged to have attended a MEK rally in New York City, during which he photographed individuals participating in the protest against the current Iranian regime. In or about December 2017, Doostdar returned to the United States from Iran and made contact with Ghorbani in the Los Angeles area. During the meeting, Doostdar paid Ghorbani approximately $2,000 in cash and Ghorbani delivered to him 28 photographs taken at the September 2017 MEK rally, many of which contained hand-written annotations identifying the individuals who appeared in the photos. These photographs, along with a hand-written receipt for $2000, were found concealed in Doostdar’s luggage as he transited a U.S. airport on his return to Iran in December 2017.
The indictment also alleges that Ghorbani traveled to Iran in or about March 2018, after informing Doostdar that he would be going to Iran to conduct an “in-person briefing.” Thereafter, on or about May 4, Ghorbani attended the MEK-affiliated 2018 Iran Freedom Convention for Human Rights in Washington, D.C. During the course of the conference, Ghorbani appeared to photograph certain speakers and attendees, which included delegations from across the United States. On May 14, Doostdar called Ghorbani to discuss clandestine methods Ghorbani should use in order to provide this information to Iran.
Ghorbani is scheduled to appear for a detention hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 21, before the Honorable G. Michael Harvey.
The charges in an indictment are merely allegations, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The maximum penalty for conspiracy is five years; the maximum penalty for acting as an agent of a foreign power is ten years; and the maximum penalty for a violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is 20 years. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted of any offense, a defendant’s sentence will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The investigation into this matter was conducted by the FBI’s Washington Field Office and Los Angeles Field Office. The case is being prosecuted by the National Security Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice.
About this Security Clearance Mess
- There are many levels to having security clearance.
- Having clearance does not automatically grant access to classified information as a result of position, rank or title.
- Having any level of security clearance also includes a required signature to a non-disclosure agreement.
- Based on information, job duty or other stipulations, clearance has limitation including a ‘need to know’ basis.
- Clearance can be and is in many cases a temporary condition for people in and outside of government.
- Former DNI, James Clapper made the last and most recent modifications to security clearance access in January of 2017 at the behest of former President Obama. It is 27 pages and can be read here.
- All people with any type or level of security clearance includes ‘public trust’.
- There is an outside/contracted agency that performs the investigation of personnel applying for clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information, commonly known as a security clearance, is granted only to those for whom an appropriate personnel security background investigation has been completed. It must be determined that the individual’s personal and professional history indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and a willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information. A determination of eligibility for access to such information is a discretionary security decision based on judgments by appropriately trained adjudicative personnel. Eligibility will be granted only where facts and circumstances indicate access to classified information is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States. Access to classified information will be terminated when an individual no longer has need for access.
Security clearances are subject to periodic re-investigation every 5 years. The individual will submit an updated security package and another background investigation will be conducted. The investigation will again cover key aspects of the individual’s life, but will start from one’s previous background investigation.
***
Meanwhile, there are now an estimated 177 signatures on the list rebuking President Trump’s removal of former CIA Director John Brennan.
Was Admiral McRaven a hack with his response? Yuppers. Watch the interview here.
Turkey is Holding Pastor Brunson Because of a Bank
Pastor Andrew Brunson faces life in prison in Turkey for fraudulent charges of supporting a terror organization and political espionage. Brunson has lived in Turkey for 23 years. He even filed an application to renew his visa application in October of 2016. More details here.
Meanwhile, as the Turkish currency tanked due to sanctions and trade issues, the lira value held for about a week until investors got in the game due to interest and enticements by the Turkish Finance Minister and President Erdogan.
So, what is the reason for detaining and the charges on the Pastor? Seems, Erdogan is using the Pastor as a tool for two reasons. One includes an anti-Erdogan activist that has lived in the United States 1999. He was/is a preacher himself and has an estimate 5 million followers. Erdogan included Gulen as one of the reasons for the attempted/alleged coup.
But the other reason is Iran. Seems Eli Lake an investigative journalist understands it better than all the rest. Why? During the Obama administration, nothing else mattered but to get an Iran nuclear deal. Those rogue governments, foreign leaders and financial institutions helping Iran evade sanctions were purposely ignored and overlooked by the Obama White House.
It was last week that the Erdogan government made an offer to the United States to release Pastor Brunson if the United States would drop charges and the investigation of the Halkbank.
President Trump gave Turkey an answer….NO.
The Trump administration rebuffed Turkey’s offer to release detained American pastor Andrew Brunson if the U.S. halts the investigation into Turkish bank Halkbank, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.
The Turkish government agreed to drop terrorism charges against the pastor in exchange of the U.S. government dropping fines totaling billions of dollars against the bank. A senior White House official said the offer was rejected.
Turkey has taken advantage of the United States for many years. They are now holding our wonderful Christian Pastor, who I must now ask to represent our Country as a great patriot hostage. We will pay nothing for the release of an innocent man, but we are cutting back on Turkey!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 16, 2018
So, there is this bank and the gold. Happened earlier this year, stemming from a 2012-2013 case:
Mehmet Hakan Atilla, an executive at Turkey’s majority state-owned Halkbank (HALKB.IS), was convicted on five of six counts he faced, including bank fraud and conspiracy to violate U.S. sanctions law, in Manhattan federal court.
Atilla was also found not guilty on a money laundering charge.
Prosecutors had accused Atilla of conspiring with gold trader Reza Zarrab and others to help Iran escape sanctions using fraudulent gold and food transactions. Zarrab pleaded guilty and testified for the prosecutors.
In several days on the witness stand, Zarrab had described a sprawling scheme that he said included bribes to Turkish government officials and was carried out with the blessing of current President Tayyip Erdogan.
Halkbank had no immediate comment. Attempts to reach Erdogan’s spokesman for comment on the allegations at the trial have been unsuccessful. Erdogan has publicly dismissed the case as a politically motivated attack on his government.
U.S. prosecutors have criminally charged nine people, though only Zarrab, 34, and Atilla, 47, have been arrested by U.S. authorities.
BANKERS’ CHOICE
“Foreign banks and bankers have a choice: you can choose willfully to help Iran and other sanctioned nations evade U.S. law, or you can choose to be part of the international banking community transacting in U.S. dollars,” Joon Kim, the acting U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, said in a statement after the verdict was read. “But you can’t do both.”
In December of 2017, the Turkish Justice Minister Abdulhamit Gul demanded in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Korkmaz be returned to Turkey, calling him “a fugitive, a terror suspect facing serious allegations.”
The Turkish government has said that followers of the U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen were behind both the Turkish investigation and the U.S. case, as well as the 2016 failed coup in Turkey. Gulen has denied the accusations. More here.
Trump Admin Seeking Global Cyber Dominance
Finally!
President Trump signed an order that reverses the classified rules and cyber processes from the Obama administration, known as IVE PPD 20. It was signed in October 2012, and this directive supersedes National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-38. Integrating cyber tools with those of national security, the directive complements NSPD-54/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-23.
Per WikiPedia:
After the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 that August,[12] Presidential Policy Directive 20 (PPD-20) was signed in secret. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a Freedom of Information Request to see it, but the NSA would not comply.[13] Some details were reported in November 2012.[14] The Washington Post wrote that PPD-20, “is the most extensive White House effort to date to wrestle with what constitutes an ‘offensive’ and a ‘defensive’ action in the rapidly evolving world of cyberwar and cyberterrorism.”[14] The following January,[15] the Obama administration released a ten-point factsheet.[16]
On June 7, 2013, PPD-20 became public.[15] Released by Edward Snowden and posted by The Guardian,[15] it is part of the 2013 Mass Surveillance Disclosures. While the U.S. factsheet claims PPD-20 acts within the law and is, “consistent with the values that we promote domestically and internationally as we have previously articulated in the International Strategy for Cyberspace”,[16] it doesn’t reveal cyber operations in the directive.[15]
Snowden’s disclosure called attention to passages noting cyberwarfare policy and its possible consequences.[15][17] The directive calls both defensive and offensive measures as Defensive Cyber Effects Operations (DCEO) and Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (OCEO), respectively.
President Trump has taken this action to aid not only the military, but it would work to deter foreign actors, impede election influence and apply new penalties for violations. There have been high worries by officials due to electric utilities and the brute cyber attacks.
***
Some lawmakers have raised questions in recent months about whether U.S. Cyber Command, the chief agency responsible for conducting offensive cyber missions, has been limited in its ability to respond to alleged Russian efforts to interfere in U.S. elections due to layers of bureaucratic hurdles.
The policy applies to the Defense Department as well as other federal agencies, the administration official said, while declining to specify which specific agencies would be affected. John Bolton, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, began an effort to remove the Obama directive when he arrived at the White House in April, the official said.
As designed, the Obama policy required U.S. agencies to gain approval for offensive operations from an array of stakeholders across the federal government, in part to avoid interfering with existing operations such as digital espionage.
Critics for years have seen Presidential Policy Directive 20 as a particular source of inertia, arguing that it handicaps or prevents important operations by involving too many federal agencies in potential attack plans. But some current and former U.S. officials have expressed concern that removing or replacing the order could sow further uncertainty about what offensive cyber operations are allowed.
One former senior U.S. official who worked on cybersecurity issues said there were also concerns that Mr. Trump’s decision will grant the military new authority “which may allow them to have a domestic mission.”
The Obama directive, which replaced an earlier framework adopted during the George W. Bush administration, was “designed to ensure that all the appropriate equities got considered when you thought about doing an offensive cyber operation,” said Michael Daniel, who served as the White House cybersecurity coordinator during the Obama administration. “The idea that this is a simple problem is a naive one.” More here from the WSJ.