Category Archives: The Denise Simon Experience

Any Americans in the Panama Papers?

Posted on by
Headlines coming soon courtesy of media as noted by McClatchy
Mossack Fonseca worked with oil firms owned by Iranian state despite sanctions

Documents show law firm at centre of Panama Papers leak carried on doing business with companies after learning of their real owners

Guardian: The law firm at the centre of the Panama Papers leak acted for an Iranian oil company that had been blacklisted by the US, the documents reveal.

Mossack Fonseca realised it was working for Petropars Ltd in 2010 only when another client accidentally fell foul of the US sanctions that had been imposed on the energy firm.

Petropars and the other client had been assigned the same PO box in the British Virgin Islands by Mossack Fonseca, and the address had been flagged by banks as linked to a blacklisted company.

The episode highlights the perils of giving the same address to thousands of shelf-companies – and the lack of rigour in Mossack Fonseca’s due diligence procedures.

This was acknowledged by the firm’s managing partner, Jürgen Mossack, who sent an angry email complaining about the lack of background checks, the documents show. “Everybody knows that there are United Nations sanctions against Iran, and we certainly want no business with regimes and individuals from such places! Not because of OFAC [the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the US Treasury department that deals with sanctions] but out of principle.”

Mossack Fonseca discovered it had been acting for the Iranian firm when the head of its Geneva office requested that a client be given a new mailing address in the British Virgin Islands (BVI).

PO box 3136 in Road Town, Tortola, was shared by a multitude of other shelf companies on the law firm’s books, including Petropars.

Petropars had been designated by the US Treasury in June that year as an oil company ultimately owned by the Iranian state. With offices in Dubai and London, it played a key role in securing foreign investment for the South Pars natural gas field. The largest in the world, the field lies in the Persian gulf and is shared with Qatar.

Putting Petropars on the official OFAC sanctions list was intended to sap financial support for Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes.

After a flurry of checks, Mossack Fonseca discovered it was acting for Petropars and two other companies in which it held stakes: Drilling Company International Limited and Venirogc Limited, a joint venture with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PDVSA, which would itself be blacklisted by the US the following year.

Three months after the blacklisting, Mossack Fonseca’s compliance team recommended resigning from Petropars and “all its associated companies”. By then, not only OFAC but the United Nations had issued sanctions against the Middle Eastern state.

Mossack Fonseca duly stood down and Petropars was recorded as inactive from May 2011, as were its two subsidiaries. But another Iranian company remained on the books.

Despite resolving to cut ties with Iran, Mossack Fonseca continued servicing an outfit called Petrocom. It shared the same London accountant as Petropars, and gave its address as Sepahbod Gharani Avenue in Tehran.

The relationship was managed through London, where a separately owned business holds the exclusive UK rights to market Mossack Fonseca’s services.

Mossack Fonseca in the BVI produced a certificate of good standing (often requested by banks or trading partners), stamped by the office of the Virgin Islands deputy governor on 14 September 2010; papers approving the appointment of a new chairman and managing director; and others for the creation of a joint venture.

Mossack Fonseca’s BVI office did carry out checks on the company. A request for the name of the ultimate beneficial owner of Petrocom elicited the following reply from Mossack Fonseca’s UK franchise: “I think we could assume that would be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unless I’m mistaken.”

While Iran’s then-president was unlikely to have actually held shares in these offshore entities, the comment makes it clear Mossack Fonseca’s UK office knew it was continuing to act for state-owned companies.

In June 2013, the US imposed sanctions on Petrocom’s parent OIIC, describing it as part of a network of 37 front companies set up to manage the Iranian leadership’s commercial holdings. OIIC was allegedly controlled by a holding company called Eiko, which stands for The Execution of Imam Khomeini’s Order.

“The purpose of this network is to generate and control massive, off-the-books investments, shielded from the view of the Iranian people and international regulators,” a US Treasury press release stated.

The most recent data, from December 2015, shows Petrocom remains on the firm’s books. A certificate of good standing was issued as recently as April 2015.

Mossack Fonseca said: “We have never knowingly allowed the use of our companies by individuals having any relationship with North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria and other countries or individuals sanctioned by the United States or European Union. We routinely resign from client engagements when ongoing due diligence and/or updates to sanctions lists reveals that a party to a company for which we provide services has been either convicted or listed by a sanctioning body.”

Emmanuel Cohen, who runs Mossack Fonseca’s UK franchise, said in a letter from his lawyer that he had been “in the forefront of undertaking due diligence checks over the years”, and that “he takes the obligations of reporting extremely seriously and files any suspicious activity” with the National Crime Agency. Regarding Petropars, Mossack Fonseca UK “was working through a professional client in the UK and was not responsible for any due diligence”. He added that the UK business was under no obligation to follow US sanctions.

Petrocom and Petropars did not respond to requests for comment.

In January 2016, the US removed Petropars and OIIC from its blacklist, following the nuclear deal with Iran.

Panama Papers reporting team: Juliette Garside, Luke Harding, Holly Watt, David Pegg, Helena Bengtsson, Simon Bowers, Owen Gibson and Nick Hopkins

Did China Connect with Hillary’s Email?

Posted on by

The clue is in the details. Dates matter, events matter and travel itinerary matters. Additionally, Hillary and her team are already attempting to limit the scope of questions during the upcoming and scheduled interrogatories.

Was an Asian government reading Hillary Clinton’s emails in February 2009?

WaPo: I continue to be fascinated by the very early chapters of the Hillary Clinton homebrew email saga. For one simple reason:  the clintonemail.com server apparently didn’t have the digital certificate needed to encrypt communications until late March 2009 — more than two months after the server was up and running, and after Secretary Clinton’s swearing-in on January 22.

Two questions are raised by this timing:  First, why didn’t the server have encryption from the start? And second, why did it get encryption in March, at a time when Clinton should have been extraordinarily busy getting up to speed at State, not messing with computer security protocols?

The simplest answer to the first question is that the lack of a certificate was just a mistake.  But what about the second?  What inspired the Secretary to get an encryption certificate in March when her team hadn’t bothered to get one in January or February?

The likely answer to that  question is pretty troubling.  There now seems to be a very real probability that Hillary Clinton rushed to install an encryption certificate in March 2009 because the U.S. intelligence community caught another country reading Clinton’s unencrypted messages during her February 16-21, 2009, trip to China, Indonesia, Japan, and S. Korea.

 

Thanks to FOIA lawsuits, the State Department has released a few documents from this early period.  They show that Clinton began using the clintonemail.com server as early as January 28, 2009, just after her inauguration.  Other messages from Cheryl Mills used the server in early February.

Even as she kept her homebrew server, Clinton and her staff were fighting to hang on to their Blackberries, just like President Obama. That provoked resistance from the State Department’s top security official, Assistant Secretary Eric Boswell.  On March 2, he sent the Secretary a memo — “Use of Blackberries on Mahogany Row” —declaring that  “the vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries in Mahogany Row [the State Department’s seventh floor executive offices] considerably outweigh their convenience.”

On March 11, at a staff meeting, Clinton seemed to throw in the towel on her Blackberry, telling Boswell that she had read the memo and “gets it.” We know this from correspondence among Boswell’s staff.

But what’s fascinating and troubling is something else in the correspondence.  One staff message says that during Clinton’s conversation with Boswell, “her attention was drawn to a sentence that indicates we [the diplomatic security office] have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.”

I am struck by the mix of delicacy and insistence in that phrasing.  It seems likely that Clinton’s attention was drawn to that sentence because the intelligence was about Secretary Clinton’s own communications security, something a discreet diplomat would not want to say directly in written communications.  Clinton certainly acted like the intelligence concerned her.  She asked Boswell to get her “the information.”On March 11, Boswell is told by his staff that the report is already on the classified system, and he is reminded that he had already been briefed on it. Presumably he conveyed it to Clinton soon after March 11.

Eighteen days later, Clinton’s server acquires a digital certificate supporting TLS encryption, closing the biggest security hole in her server.

I suppose this could all be coincidence, but the most likely scenario is that the Secretary’s Asia trip produced an intelligence report that was directly relevant to the security of Clinton’s communications.  And that the report was sufficiently dramatic that it spurred Clinton to make immediate security changes on her homebrew server.

Did our agencies see Clinton’s unencrypted messages transiting foreign networks?  Did they spot foreign agencies intercepting those messages?  It’s hard to say, but either answer is bad, and the quick addition of encryption to the server suggests that Clinton saw it that way too.

If that’s what happened, it would raise more questions.  Getting a digital certificate to support encryption is hardly a comprehensive response to the server’s security vulnerabilities. So who decided that that was all the security it needed?  How pointed was the warning about her Asia trip?  Does it expand the circle of officials who should have known about and addressed the server’s insecurity? And why, despite evidence that Clinton was using the server in connection with work in January and February, did Clinton turn over no emails before March 18?

We don’t know the answers to those questions, and they may have perfectly good answers.  But they do suggest that the investigation should be focusing heavily on who did what to clintonemail.com in January through March of 2009.

State Department: Don’t Ask Hillary Aides About Classified Info in Lawsuit

DailyBeast: Lawyers object to any attempt to ask Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and others about how information was handled—and are dead set against Clinton testifying.

Lawyers for the State Department want to limit the types of questions that a watchdog group can ask former aides to Hillary Clinton, and potentially the former secretary of state herself, about her creation and use of a private email system while she was in office.

The department asked a federal judge Tuesday night to grant “limited discovery” to Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that wants to depose some of Clinton’s closest associates and staffers.

State’s lawyers proposed that the group only be allowed to ask questions about “the reasons for the creation of the clintonemail.com system,” and not about how classified information was handled on the system or any issues related to protecting it from hackers.

The State Department lawyers also indicated that they may object to any attempt to depose Clinton. Judicial Watch hasn’t proposed to depose the Democratic presidential front runner, but has said it wants to interview Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s closest aides and a personal friend; Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff; Patrick Kennedy, a senior State Department official; and others who were involved in discussions among State Department officials about Clinton’s email usage.

Based on the schedule that both State Department and Judicial Watch lawyers have proposed, interviews with ex-Clinton aides could begin in the weeks heading into the Democratic presidential nominating convention in July.

The questions that State wants to put off limits have been at the center of multiple inquiries by inspectors general and the FBI about how Clinton handled classified information and whether she or her staff violated any laws or rules about maintaining government records. Investigators have found that some of the emails in Clinton’s server contained classified information when they were sent, though she has maintained they were never marked as such.

The lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch is one of dozens by activists and journalists seeking information about Clinton’s private email system, which was run out of a “homebrew” server in her house in New York. It’s unusual, however, in that it’s only one of two cases in which a federal judge has agreed to allow discovery, including potential examination of government documents and interviews with current or former officials.

Judicial Watch brought the suit in an effort to obtain information about the government’s employment agreement with Abedin, a key member of Clinton’s inner circle who simultaneously held four jobs for a six month period in 2012: at the State Department, at the Clinton family’s foundation, in Hillary Clinton’s personal office, and at a private consulting firm with connections to the Clintons.

The group also wants to depose Bryan Pagliano, who reportedly maintained Clinton’s email server. Pagliano has been granted immunity in exchange for his cooperation with FBI investigators, and State’s lawyers asked the judge to prevent Judicial Watch from asking questions about the bureau’s investigation.

Meanwhile, FBI Director James Comey told reporters in Buffalo on Monday that he was in no rush to complete the investigation, which he said could extend past the Democratic and Republican conventions.

“The urgency is to do it well and promptly,” Comey said. “And ‘well’ comes first.”

Clinton said Sunday on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that FBI agents had yet to contact her for an interview but that she is willing to sit down with them.

The State Department had fought to keep Judicial Watch from conducting discovery at all, arguing that the group sought to expand the question about Abedin’s employment situation “into a far-ranging inquiry” about whether records laws had been broken.

But U.S. district judge Emmet Sullivan expressed his frustration in a hearing last February over the fragmentary way that new revelations and disclosures about Clinton’s email system have come to light. He concluded that discovery, which is rare for cases like this one brought under the Freedom of Information Act, was warranted.

“This is a constant drip, a declaration drip. That’s what we’re having here, you know, and it needs to stop,” Sullivan said, before ordering that limited discovery could proceed.

The lack of a complete explanation for why Clinton had set up a private email system gave rise to “a reasonable suspicion of bad faith” on the part of State Department officials, who may have been trying to thwart transparency laws, Sullivan said. There was no question that senior officials working for Clinton knew she was using a private email server, he noted.

“It appears that no one took any steps to ensure that agency records on Clintonemail.com were secured within the State Department’s record systems” in order to respond to records requests in the future, Sullivan said. “How in the world could this happen?”

At one point, Sullivan asked rhetorically, “Was the system created to accommodate the former secretary? Was the system created to thwart [Freedom of Information Act] compliance?” Until those questions are answered, he said, the court can’t determine whether the government had fully and adequately searched for records in the underlying case.

“We’re talking about a cabinet-level official who was accommodated by the government for reasons unknown to the public,” Sullivan said.

In the other case in which a judge has granted discovery, U.S. district court judge Royce Lamberth ruled last week that “where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith…”

That case, which was also brought by Judicial Watch, is about government talking points that officials crafted following the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

 

 

1000 Foreign Nationals, 21 Arrested and a Fake School

Posted on by
Lots of questions to be asked here but let’s start with: What was the tip that started this investigation? The next question is: Who investigated the school to give it a license or accreditation or did it have one? The last question: What happened to the 1000 foreign nationals?
Oh wait, here is an update…this was an FBI sting operation. The Feds actually created the school for the sting operation. My bad, I should have known.
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, April 5, 2016

21 Defendants Charged with Fraudulently Enabling Hundreds of Foreign Nationals to Remain in the United States Through Fake ‘Pay to Stay’ New Jersey College

“College” Created as Part of Homeland Security Investigations Sting Operation

Twenty-one brokers, recruiters and employers from across the United States who allegedly conspired with more than 1,000 foreign nationals to fraudulently maintain student visas and obtain foreign worker visas through a “pay to stay” New Jersey college were arrested this morning by federal agents, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman for the District of New Jersey announced.

The defendants (see chart below) were arrested in New Jersey and Washington by special agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and charged in 14 complaints with conspiracy to commit visa fraud, conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit and other offenses.  All the defendants, with the exception of Yanjun Lin aka Aimee Lin, 25, of Flushing, New York, will appear today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion of the District of New Jersey in Newark, New Jersey, federal court.  Lin will appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom in the Western District of Washington federal court.

“‘Pay to Stay’ schemes not only damage our perception of legitimate student and foreign worker visa programs, they also pose a very real threat to national security,” U.S. Attorney Fishman said.  “Today’s arrests, which were made possible by the great undercover work of our law enforcement partners, stopped 21 brokers, recruiters and employers across multiple states who recklessly exploited our immigration system for financial gain.”

“While the United States fully supports international education, we will vigorously investigate those who seek to exploit the U.S. immigration system,” said Director Sarah R. Saldaña for ICE.  “As a result of this operation, HSI special agents have successfully identified and closed a gap in the student visa system and have arrested 21 individuals alleged to be amongst the system’s most egregious violators.”

“Individuals engaged in schemes that would undermine the remarkable educational opportunities afforded to international students represent an affront to those who play by the rules,” said Special Agent in Charge Terence S. Opiola for ICE Homeland Security Investigations.  “These unscrupulous individuals undermine the integrity of the immigration system.  Our special agents are committed to addressing, identifying fraud in order to better protect the system as a whole.”

According to the complaints unsealed today and statements made in court:

The defendants, many of whom operated recruiting companies for purported international students, were arrested for their involvement in an alleged scheme to enroll foreign nationals as students in the University of Northern New Jersey, a purported for-profit college located in Cranford, New Jersey (UNNJ).  Unbeknownst to the defendants and the foreign nationals they conspired with, however, the UNNJ was created in September 2013 by HSI federal agents.

Through the UNNJ, undercover HSI agents investigated criminal activities associated with the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), including, but not limited to, student visa fraud and the harboring of aliens for profit.  The UNNJ was not staffed with instructors or educators, had no curriculum and conducted no actual classes or education activities.  The UNNJ operated solely as a storefront location with small offices staffed by federal agents posing as school administrators.

UNNJ represented itself as a school that, among other things, was authorized to issue a document known as a “Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-1) Student Status – for Academic and Language Students,” commonly referred to as a Form I-20.  This document, which certifies that a foreign national has been accepted to a school and would be a full-time student, typically enables legitimate foreign students to obtain an F-1 student visa.  The F-1 student visa allows a foreign student to enter and/or remain in the United States while the student makes normal progress toward the completion of a full course of study in an SEVP accredited institution.

During the investigation, HSI special agents identified hundreds of foreign nationals, primarily from China and India, who previously entered the U.S. on F-1 non-immigrant student visas to attend other SEVP- accredited schools.  Through various recruiting companies and business entities located in New Jersey, California, Illinois, New York and Virginia, the defendants then enabled approximately 1,076 of these foreign individuals – all of whom were willing participants in the scheme – to fraudulently maintain their nonimmigrant status in the U.S. on the false pretense that they continued to participate in full courses of study at the UNNJ.

Acting as recruiters, the defendants solicited the involvement of UNNJ administrators to participate in the scheme.  During the course of their dealings with undercover agents, the defendants fully acknowledged that none of their foreign national clients would attend any actual courses, earn actual credits, or make academic progress toward an actual degree in a particular field of study.  Rather, the defendants facilitated the enrollment of their foreign national clients in UNNJ to fraudulently maintain student visa status, in exchange for kickbacks, or “commissions.”  The defendants also facilitated the creation of hundreds of false student records, including transcripts, attendance records and diplomas, which were purchased by their foreign national conspirators for the purpose of deceiving immigration authorities.

In other instances, the defendants used UNNJ to fraudulently obtain work authorization and work visas for hundreds of their clients.  By obtaining this authorization, a number of defendants were able to outsource their foreign national clients as full-time employees with numerous U.S.-based corporations, also in exchange for commission fees.  Other defendants devised phony IT projects that were purportedly to occur at the school.  These defendants then created and caused to be created false contracts, employment verification letters, transcripts and other documents.  The defendants then paid the undercover agents thousands of dollars to put the school’s letterhead on the sham documents, to sign the documents as school administrators and to otherwise go along with the scheme.

All of these bogus documents created the illusion that prospective foreign workers would be working at the school in some IT capacity or project.  The defendants then used these fictitious documents fraudulently to obtain labor certifications issued by the U.S. Secretary of Labor and then ultimately to petition the U.S. government to obtain H1-B visas for non-immigrants.  These fictitious documents were then submitted to the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS).  In the vast majority of circumstances, the foreign worker visas were not issued because USCIS was advised of the ongoing undercover operation.

In addition, starting today, HSI Newark is coordinating with the ICE Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU) and the SEVP to terminate the nonimmigrant student status for the foreign nationals associated with UNNJ, and if applicable, administratively arrest and place them into removal proceedings.

The chart below outlines the charges for each defendant.  The charges of conspiracy to commit visa fraud and making a false statement each carry a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.  The charges of conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit and H1-B Visa fraud each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and $250,000 fine.

The charges and allegations contained in the complaints are merely accusations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under the leadership of Director Saldaña; HSI Newark, under the leadership of Special Agent in Charge Opiola; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit, under the leadership of Unit Chief Robert Soria;  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Fraud Detection and National Security Section, under the leadership of Associate Director Matthew Emrich; the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, under the leadership of Deputy Assistant Director Louis M. Farrell; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Vermont Service Center, Security Fraud Division, under the leadership of Associate Center Director Bradley J. Brouillette; U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Office of Fraud Prevention Programs, under the leadership of Director Josh Glazeroff; and the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, under the leadership of Timothy Gallagher in Newark, for their contributions to the investigation.

He also thanked the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC), under the leadership of Executive Director Michale S. McComis, and the New Jersey Office of Higher Education, under the leadership of Secretary of Higher Education Rochelle R. Hendricks, for their assistance.  In addition, U.S. Attorney Fishman thanked the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission and the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Central District of California, Eastern District of New York, Eastern District of Virginia, Southern District of New York, Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division, and the Northern District of Georgia for their help.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Dennis C. Carletta of the U.S. Attorney’s Office National Security Unit and Sarah Devlin of the Office’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Unit.

Defendant Name Age Residence Charges
Jun Shen aka Jeanette Shen 32 Levittown, New York – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Jiaming Wang aka Celine Wang, 34 Los Angeles, California – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Philip Junlin Li

 

 33 Los Angeles, California – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Zitong Wen aka Kate Wen 27 Rowland Heights, California – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Chaun Kit Yuen aka Alvin Yuen 24 Rowland Heights, California – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Ting Zue aka Tiffany Xue 28 Flushing, New York – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Yanjun Lin aka Aimee Lin 25 Flushing, New York – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Zheng Zhang aka Vicky Zhang 26 New York, New York – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Xue Yong Liu aka Jack Liu 29 New York, New York – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Minglu Li aka Vivian Lee 36 Los Angeles, California – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Jason Li aka Jason Liu aka Fen Lee 43 Flushing, New York – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit
Tajesh Kodali 44 Edison, New Jersey – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Jyoti Patel 34 Franklin Park, New Jersey – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Shahjadi M. Parvin aka Sarah Patel 54 Hackensack, New Jersey – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Narendra Singh Plaha 44 Hillsborough, New Jersey – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Sanjeev Sukhija 35 North Brunswick, New Jersey – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Harpreet Sachdeva 26 Somerset, New Jersey – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Avinash Shankar 35 Bloomington, Illinois – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Karthik Nimmala 32 Smyrna, Georgia – Conspiracy to commit visa fraud

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Govardhan Dyavarashetty aka Vardhan Shetty 35 Avenel, New Jersey – H1-B Visa fraud

– False statements

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 
Syed Qasim Abbas aka Qasim Reza aka Nayyer 41 Brooklyn, New York – H1-B Visa fraud

– False statements

– Conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit

 

7 Questions on the Hillary Email Investigation, Only 7?

Posted on by

At least some in Washington DC are asking some questions. What questions do you have? Here is a question…Where are the emails between Hillary and the White House especially Barack Obama?

7 lingering questions in the Clinton email investigation

TheHill: The FBI appears to be entering the home stretch of its investigation into Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton private email server.

Yet even as arrangements are reportedly being made to interview Clinton and her top aides, much remains unclear.

The FBI under Director James Comey refuses to publicly discuss the investigation, as is customary, but critics say the lingering questions show the review is anything but routine and could result in criminal indictments.
Here’s a look at what is still not publicly known.

When will the investigation end?

The FBI’s investigation had dogged Clinton’s presidential campaign since last summer. The longer it goes, the more likely it is to damage to her chances of winning the Democratic nomination and the White House.

Reports indicate that the bureau is sprinting to complete its work so it won’t be seen as meddling in the presidential election.

Still, according to Clinton, the FBI has yet to reach out to her to schedule an interview, despite reports that she and other top aides could soon be brought in for questioning.

“They haven’t,” Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this weekend. “But, you know, back in August, we made clear that I’m happy to answer any questions that anybody might have. And I stand by that.”

What law(s) might have been broken?

Top officials at the FBI and Justice Department have refused to discuss what charges — if any — might result from the investigation.

Speculation about the charges has centered on federal statutes prohibiting against removing federal documents, especially 18 U.S.C. § 2071. A portion of that law bars officials from “willfully and unlawfully” concealing, removing or destroying federal records.

Other laws identified by the watchdog group Cause of Action include prohibitions against removing defense-related information “from its proper place of custody” and against removing classified information to keep “at an unauthorized location.”

Critics also say Clinton or her top aides may have violated internal State Department procedures about handling classified information.

Who’s in the crosshairs?

Clinton is the highest-profile name floated as a possible target of the FBI’s probe, but she isn’t alone.

According to Al Jazeera, the FBI is also seeking to interview Clinton’s former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and ex-spokesman Philippe Reines. Questions have also mounted about longtime aide Huma Abedin, Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and former State Department official Jake Sullivan, who authored more emails now considered classified on Clinton’s server than anyone else, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

A conservative legal watchdog group has asked for eight people to testify in a separate court case relating to Clinton’s server, including Mills, Abedin, Kennedy and IT official Bryan Pagliano. In that case, a federal judge said current and former State Department officials could be questioned about whether the department willfully circumvented the Freedom of Information Act.

Pagliano, who is believed to have been responsible for setting up the server in Clinton’s Chappaqua, N.Y., home, was granted immunity in exchange for his cooperation with the FBI.

What would the government have to prove to file charges?

Perhaps the biggest question for the bureau is whether there was the intent to “willfully” remove government documents, or whether Clinton’s situation was merely an oversight, as she has claimed.

None of the thousands of emails that Clinton handed over to the State Department were marked as classified, the government has said, but classified information can appear in unmarked emails as well.

Upon entering office, Clinton signed a nondisclosure agreement vowing to protect classified information, whether it is “marked or unmarked.”

Last week, the State Department halted its internal probe of whether 22 emails that have been deemed top secret — the highest level of classification — were classified at the time they were sent. The department said it was deferring to the FBI’s investigation.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, has said the evidence suggests that Clinton knew at least some of the information was sensitive, and yet kept it on her personal server anyway.

“The simple proposition that everyone is equal before the law suggests that Mrs. Clinton’s state of mind … justifies a criminal charge of one sort or another,” Muksaey wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

How much will the FBI say?

The Justice Department is in a difficult spot, as it is likely to face a political backlash no matter what it decides in the Clinton case.

Many conservatives already doubt that the Obama administration is willing to pursue an indictment connected to the Democratic presidential front-runner. Lack of formal charges might merely be viewed as proof that the process was not above-board.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has pressed for the FBI to release the evidence collected during its investigation once the probe is concluded — regardless of the outcome — to reassure the public that political considerations did not play a role in the Department’s decision.

To avoid concerns about impartiality, Grassley and other prominent Republicans have pressed for Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint a special independent prosecutor to handle the Clinton investigation.

So far, she has denied the request.

Was the server secure?

Clinton’s camp has refused to outline precisely which digital protections she used to safeguard the information on her private server.

Independent cybersecurity analysts have concluded that the server went at least two months without using standard encryption protections that make data inaccessible to hackers.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates in January said “the odds are pretty high” that foreign spies in China, Russia or Iran would have gotten access to Clinton’s data.

Adm. Michael Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency and the U.S. Cyber Command, testified before Congress that, for foreign intelligence agencies, the server “would represent opportunity.”

Clinton only gave about half of the approximately 60,000 emails she sent while secretary of State to the federal government for record keeping. The rest of the messages, she said, were purely personal in nature and were deleted.

The claim set off a firestorm in Washington, with many Republicans and transparency advocates fretting that Clinton and her team had unilaterally decided to delete half of her email correspondence, without affirming with the government that it was truly personal.

It remains unclear whether those messages can be recovered from the server or if they will ever be released.

 

Who are Those Wearing Blue Helmets?

Posted on by

I have been saying for years that those that make up the U.N. Peacekeepers are the worst of the worst that member nations offer up and finally, The New York Times figured it out. I bet that Donald Trump actually meant the United Nations rather than NATO when he spoke about breaking it up or did he?

Armies Used by U.N. Fail Watchdog Group’s Test

NYT: The militaries of the 30 countries that provide the most soldiers and police officers to United Nations peacekeeping operations also are among those most susceptible to corruption, according to a study released Sunday by an anti-corruption monitoring organization.

The organization, Transparency International, known for its annual corruption rankings of governments around the world, said that in its A-to-F grading for the armed forces of the top troop-contributing countries, only Italy scored higher than a D.

Six of the countries — Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Egypt, Morocco and Togo — received F grades, Transparency International said.

The three countries that contribute the most troops, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and India — which together provide about 25,200 uniformed personnel, roughly a quarter of the total in United Nations peacekeeping operations — also scored poorly in the study’s rankings. Bangladesh and India each received a D, and Ethiopia an E.

The organization cited poor anti-corruption practices and inadequate training as factors in assessing the rankings.

The study comes against a backdrop of new allegations against some peacekeepers. The most recent catalyst for concern has been a growing sex-abuse scandal that has implicated peacekeepers deployed to the Central African Republic, in episodes dating to 2013, many involving children.

Transparency International did not cite any examples of peacekeeper corruption in the study.

United Nations officials did not dispute the findings but said the study did not reflect steps the organization had taken to prevent corruption by peacekeepers.

“There are a full range of audit and independent oversight systems that are in place to protect against such risks once individual units deploy to peacekeeping operations,” Nick Birnback, a spokesman for United Nations peacekeeping, said.

A few years ago there was the genesis of the Syrian civil war, Somalia, Libya and more. This speaks to not only the peacekeepers being criminals and corrupt but the leadership of the United Nations as well. Neither Kofi Annan or Ban Ki Moon have taken the UN up to levels where it becomes meaningful. It is not for lack of intelligence, the UN building in New York is full of international spies and well connected to world leaders, it becomes a lack of will and management.

2012, Ignatius of WaPo in part: The Somalia mess made the United Nations so nervous about intervention that it ignored an appeal a few months later from its own representative in Rwanda that a genocidal massacre was about to begin there.

In January 1994, Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the French Canadian commander of a small force called UNAMIR, cabled New York that the Hutu-led government in Kigali was planning the “extermination” of Tutsis. He concluded his message, “Allons-y.” Let’s go. The United Nations did nothing. Three months later, 800,000 Rwandans were dead.

Annan was running peacekeeping operations at the time, and his deputy cabled the brave Dallaire insisting on “the need to avoid entering into a course of action that might lead to the use of force and unanticipated consequences.” That’s a sorry U.N. chapter, and it’s to Annan’s credit that he tells this and other stories so honestly.

The third debacle was Bosnia. In April 1993, the Security Council demanded that the town of Srebenica, filled with 60,000 Muslim refugees and encircled by Bosnian Serb forces, become a “safe area . . . free from armed attacks.” The refugees waited more than two years for the United Nations to deliver. In July 1995, Gen. Ratko Mladic committed his infamous massacre. A month later, UNPROFOR finally intervened.

When Annan became secretary-general, the United Nations tried to bolster its peacekeeping efforts. It did better in East Timor, Kosovo and Libya in putting some teeth in the concept of a “responsibility to protect.” But the abiding story has been the United Nations’ limitations — in dealing with Iraq, the Palestinian issue, Iran and now Syria.
What to do? Albright and 15 other former foreign ministers just sent a letter to President Vladimir Putin saying they were “gravely disappointed” by Russia’s failure to support the U.N. mission and pleading for action to stop the war in Syria. Albright’s office says that the Russians responded negatively. As the whole of this revealing book demonstrates, there’s got to be a better way to prevent ruinous conflicts.