#Citizens Committee To Investigate The FBI | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lokiinmediasideblog · 21 days

Text

FISA 702 HAS PASSED THE HOUSED. WE MUST STOP IT!

Fax your legislators! TELL THEM YOU WON'T VOTE FOR THEM IF THEY VOTE YES ON FISA (Fy-zah) 702!

You can also fax your legislators for FREE at:

From Edward Snowden's Twitter:

If you were mad about your House rep voting to let the government spy on you without a warrant ("FISA 702" - fy-za seven-oh-two), we may have one last shot. CALL YOUR REP @ (202) 224-3121 and say "𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝟳𝟬𝟮, 𝗜 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗿𝗶𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂."

From the article link:

House lawmakers voted on Friday to reauthorize section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or Fisa, including a key measure that allows for warrantless surveillance of Americans. The controversial law allows for far-reaching monitoring of foreign communications, but has also led to the collection of US citizens’ messages and phone calls.

Lawmakers voted 273–147 to approve the law, which the Biden administration has for years backed as an important counterterrorism tool. An amendment that would have required authorities seek a warrant failed, in a tied 212-212 vote across party lines.

Donald Trump opposed the reauthorization of the bill, posting to his Truth Social platform on Wednesday: “KILL FISA, IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS. THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN!!!”

The law, which gives the government expansive powers to view emails, calls and texts, has long been divisive and resulted in allegations from civil liberties groups that it violates privacy rights. House Republicans were split in the lead-up to vote over whether to reauthorize section 702, the most contentious aspect of the bill, with Mike Johnson, the House speaker, struggling to unify them around a revised version of the pre-existing law.

Republicans shot down a procedural vote on Wednesday that would have allowed Johnson to put the bill to a floor vote, in a further blow to the speaker’s ability to find compromise within his party. Following the defeat, the bill was changed from a five-year extension to a two-year extension of section 702 – an effort to appease far-right Republicans who believe Trump will be president by the time it expires.

Section 702 allows for government agencies such as the National Security Administration to collect data and monitor the communications of foreign citizens outside of US territory without the need for a warrant, with authorities touting it as a key tool in targeting cybercrime, international drug trafficking and terrorist plots. Since the collection of foreign data can also gather communications between people abroad and those in the US, however, the result of section 702 is that federal law enforcement can also monitor American citizens’ communications.

Section 702 has faced opposition before, but it became especially fraught in the past year after court documents revealed that the FBI had improperly used it almost 300,000 times – targeting racial justice protesters, January 6 suspects and others. That overreach emboldened resistance to the law, especially among far-right Republicans who view intelligence services like the FBI as their opponent.

Trump’s all-caps post further weakened Johnson’s position. Trump’s online remarks appeared to refer to an FBI investigation into a former campaign adviser of his, which was unrelated to section 702. Other far-right Republicans such as Matt Gaetz similarly vowed to derail the legislation, putting its passage in peril.

Meanwhile, the Ohio congressman Mike Turner, Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, told lawmakers on Friday that failing to reauthorize the bill would be a gift to China’s government spying programs, as well as Hamas and Hezbollah.

“We will be blind as they try to recruit people for terrorist attacks in the United States,” Turner said on Friday on the House floor.

The California Democratic representative and former speaker Nancy Pelosi also gave a statement in support of passing section 702 with its warrantless surveillance abilities intact, urging lawmakers to vote against an amendment that would weaken its reach.

“I don’t have the time right now, but if members want to know I’ll tell you how we could have been saved from 9/11 if we didn’t have to have the additional warrants,” Pelosi said.

Debate over Section 702 pitted Republicans who alleged that the law was a tool for spying on American citizens against others in the GOP who sided with intelligence officials and deemed it a necessary measure to stop foreign terrorist groups. One proposed amendment called for requiring authorities to secure a warrant before using section 702 to view US citizens’ communications, an idea that intelligence officials oppose as limiting their ability to act quickly. Another sticking point in the debate was whether law enforcement should be prohibited from buying information on American citizens from data broker firms, which amass and sell personal data on tens of millions of people, including phone numbers and email addresses.

Section 702 dates back to the George W Bush administration, which secretly ran warrantless wiretapping and surveillance programs in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks. In 2008, Congress passed section 702 as part of the Fisa Amendments Act and put foreign surveillance under more formal government oversight. Lawmakers have renewed the law twice since, including in 2018 when they rejected an amendment that would have required authorities to get warrants for US citizens’ data.

Last year Merrick Garland, the attorney general, and Avril Haines, director of national intelligence, sent a letter to congressional leaders telling them to reauthorize section 702. They claimed that intelligence gained from it resulted in numerous plots against the US being foiled, and that it was partly responsible for facilitating the drone strike that killed the al-Qaida leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in 2022.

#us politics #internet #mass surveillance #censorship #lgbtqia #palestine #islamophobia #FISA 702 #KOSA

42 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 19 days

Text

By: Olivia Reingold

Published: Apr 15, 2024

CHICAGO — About 300 anti-war activists crowded into the basement of the Teamsters Union’s headquarters on Saturday to hear organizers from all over the country describe their plans to disrupt the Democratic National Convention this August. Joe Biden’s backing of Israel since Hamas’s October 7 attack has turned these left-wing radicals against their own party.

“It’s really inspiring to see that people are just as enthusiastic, and maybe even more enthusiastic, to march on the DNC as they are to march on the RNC,” says Omar Florez, a Milwaukee-based activist. “We can thank Genocide Joe and our movement for that.”

But then a man stumbles to the podium, wiping sweat from his forehead. He grabs the microphone to announce that the Islamic regime of Iran has launched missiles and drones heading straight toward Israel.

“They believe that they will be in Palestinian—I don’t call it Israeli—airspace between two and four a.m., which means about two to four hours from now,” he says. “In addition, there are reports of drones having been fired on Israel from Yemen and Iraq.”

The crowd, all wearing black N95s, erupts into applause. Someone in the back lowers their mask to send a celebratory whistle soaring throughout the room.

The man at the podium, Hatem Abudayyeh, heads the U.S. Palestinian Community Network, “a purported community group which, on information and belief, is an affiliate of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a designated terror organization based in Gaza,” according to a lawsuit over the alleged relations between U.S. advocacy groups and Hamas.

“This is when this country and the world needs us because the United States is going to, quote unquote, defend the criminal Israeli state,” says Abudayyeh, whose home was raided by the FBI in 2010 as part of an investigation “concerning the material support of terrorism.”

“We have to assume that the United States is going to try to retaliate against Iran.”

After the boos and calls of “shame” subside, Abudayyeh says it is “incumbent” upon Americans to “stop the United States from expanding this war and hitting Iran.”

“We’ve got to be the strong, powerful anti-war movement that we are,” he says, placing the microphone down and exiting the stage.

The crowd immediately began chanting, “Hands off Iran.”

A woman in a hot pink gas mask, wielding a matching neon cane and dressed in a “Protect Trans Kids” t-shirt, throws her fist in the air. Nearby, a service poodle is taking a nap under the chair of his owner, who is wearing a leather harness over his t-shirt. Then the group that has joined here from cities across America—Seattle, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles—cheers and claps in celebration.

Joe Iosbaker, an organizer with the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, which called October 7 a “good turn of events” in its press release about the terrorist attacks, tells me he supports Iran. His organization has since released a statement backing Iran, where citizens gathered to shout “Death to America” during their nation’s strike against Israel Saturday night.

“We demand hands off Iran,” the statement says. “The people have power, and we will exercise it in the streets.”

Earlier that day, before news of the attack broke, at a “breakout session” on “the anti-war movement,” Shabbir Rizvi, an organizer with Anti-War Committee Chicago, taught participants how to chant “death to Israel” and “death to America” in Farsi.

“Marg bar Israel,” he chanted, leading a group of about 80 attendees along with him. A man draped in a Soviet flag bearing a gold hammer and sickle clapped his hands.

A man in a full black denim outfit shouted out behind his N95—“Can we get a ‘marg bar America’?”

“We can get a ‘marg bar America,’ ” Rizvi replied.

Then Rizvi raised his hand in the air, leading the crowd like a conductor.

“Marg bar America,” they cheered.

On my way out of the event, I ask a woman smoking a cigarette to fill me in on the latest news regarding Iran’s lobbing of missiles and drones, which were later intercepted with help from forces from France, the U.S., and the UK. Iran said its strike was retaliation for Israel’s hit on the Iranian embassy in Syria earlier this month, which destroyed the consulate building next to the embassy and killed two of Tehran’s top commanders, and that the matter is “concluded”—unless Israel hits back.

“Iran is part of the resistance,” said the woman, who flew in that morning from New Orleans, where she’s been part of an effort to disrupt Israel-bound shipments in her hometown. “Yemen and Iran and Hezbollah, who are also a militant group in Lebanon, and the Syrian government are all parts of the arc of resistance.”

A smile creeps across her face as she tells me: “They’re part of the arc of resistance because the enemies are Israel and the USA.”

Remember Mahsa Amini? These insane fuckers don't. They've sided with the brutal Islamic Republic of Iran.

They hate our liberal, secular countries and they want to destroy them. They keep telling us who they are. Do you believe them yet?

Revoke citizenship and deport. I wasn't kidding before and I'm still not kidding now.

#antisemitism #anti war #death to israel #death to america #hamas terrorism #Iran #pro hamas #islamic terrorism #islam #this is islam #pro palestine #sedition #palestine #israel #islamic terrorists #terrorist scarf #religion is a mental illness

25 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 9 months

Text

ATLANTA — The purported names and addresses of members of the grand jury that indicted Donald Trump and 18 of his co-defendants on state racketeering charges this week have been posted on a fringe website that often features violent rhetoric, NBC News has learned.

NBC News is choosing not to name the website featuring the addresses to avoid further spreading the information.

The Fulton County District Attorney’s Office declined to comment. District Attorney Fani Willis faced racist threats ahead of the return of the indictment, and additional security measures were put in place, with some employees being allowed to work from home.

The grand jurors' purported addresses were spotted by Advance Democracy, a nonpartisan research group founded by Daniel J. Jones, a former FBI investigator and staffer for the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee.

“It’s becoming all too commonplace to see everyday citizens performing necessary functions for our democracy being targeted with violent threats by Trump-supporting extremists," Jones said. "The lack of political leadership on the right to denounce these threats — which serve to inspire real-world political violence — is shameful.”

Advance Democracy also noted that users were posting the names and images of people believed to have been grand jurors on other social media sites. The posts asserted that the jurors had posted on social media in support of Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., former President Barack Obama and the Black Lives Matter movement.

The indictment issued Monday lists the names of the grand jury members but not their addresses or other personal information.

Tuesday — after Trump posted on his social media website that authorities were going "after those that fought to find the RIGGERS!" — Advance Democracy said Trump supporters were "using the term ‘rigger’ in lieu of a racial slur" in posts.

The Fulton County Sheriff's Office, which is handling the surrender of Trump and his co-defendants over the next 10 days, declined to comment.

“We are not commenting on any issues related to grand jury security," said Natalie Ammons, a spokeswoman for the sheriff's office.

The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The grand jurors have come under attack in the days since Trump's indictment, the fourth criminal indictment brought against the twice-impeached former president.

“These jurors have signed their death warrant by falsely indicting President Trump," a post on a pro-Trump forum read in response to a post including the names of jurors, which was viewed by NBC News.

#nunyas news #i bet leaks are bad now

87 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 6 months

Text

During a Senate briefing last week, a federal counterterrorism official cited the October 7 Hamas attack while urging Congress to reauthorize a sprawling and controversial surveillance program repeatedly used to spy on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

“As evidenced by the events of the past month, the terrorist threat landscape is highly dynamic and our country must preserve [counterterrorism] fundamentals to ensure constant vigilance,” said Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Christine Abizaid to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, after making repeat references to Hamas’s attack on Israel.

She pointed to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which enables the U.S. government to gather vast amounts of intelligence — including about U.S. citizens — under the broad category of foreign intelligence information, without first seeking a warrant.

Section 702 “provides key indications and warning on terrorist plans and intentions, supports international terrorist disruptions, enables critical intelligence support to, for instance, border security, and gives us strategic insight into foreign terrorists and their networks overseas,” Abizaid said. “I respectfully urge Congress to reauthorize this vital authority.”

The controversial program is set to expire at the end of the year, and lawmakers sympathetic to the intelligence community are scrambling to protect it, as some members of Congress like Sen. Ron Wyden push for reforms that restrain the government’s surveillance abilities. According to Rep. Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, plans are underway to prepare a stopgap measure to preserve Section 702 of FISA as a long-term reauthorization containing reforms is hammered out.

Sean Vitka, senior policy counsel at the civil liberties group Demand Progress, told The Intercept that now is the time to enact lasting and dramatic oversight of the 702 authority. “The government has completely failed to demonstrate that any of the privacy protections reformers have called for would impair national security, all while surveillance hawks in Congress have suffered a series of setbacks, so now we’re seeing people grasping at straws trying to turn everything into an excuse for reauthorization,” Vitka said.

He added that “agencies’ refusal to embrace this as a once-in-a generation opportunity to protect Americans’ civil liberties and reform our broken surveillance apparatus” could doom 702 in the long run.

Created in 1978, FISA was vastly expanded in the aftermath of 9/11 to provide federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies enhanced surveillance powers. While it was originally described as a way to collect information on foreign entities, the law enables the targeting of U.S. citizens in contact with foreign nationals.

This loophole makes it easy for federal agencies to target wide swaths of the U.S. population, and it has for years been condemned by civil liberties advocates who view it as a clear-cut instance of governmental overreach. The 702 authority has been abused to such a great extent that President Joe Biden’s own intelligence advisory board recommended curtailing the FBI’s ability to manipulate the authority to investigate and prosecute Americans.

The Brennan Center for Justice last month issued a document noting that the FBI has used the 702 authority to spy on U.S. representatives, senators, civil liberties organizations, political campaigns, and activists. Civil libertarians have proposed various reforms to the authority, including limits on the types of communication the FBI can search, the implementation of stringent warrant requirements to restrict FISA searches, and an end to the loophole that allows federal agencies to surveil Americans by purchasing data from private sector brokers.

Abizaid’s statements to the Senate Homeland Security Committee followed similar appeals by FBI Director Christopher Wray and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, who also spoke at the hearing. The push to extend the government’s surveillance powers comes as elected officials call for investigations into pro-Palestine groups — drawing condemnation from numerous civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union.

Already in Virginia, the attorney general has initiated an investigation into the nonprofit American Muslims for Palestine’s fundraising activities, including allegations that it supports Hamas, a designated terror group. The organization described the investigation as a dangerous and baseless smear.

#domestic spying #us spy agencies #FISA #christine abisaid #democrats #FBI

8 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 10 months

Text

The “missing” witness long-touted by Republicans in Congress as the missing link to their probe into alleged Biden family corruption was accused of being an unregistered foreign agent for China and an international arms trafficker while violating U.S. sanctions on Iran and lying to investigators, among a laundry list of other federal charges unsealed Monday.

Dual U.S.-Israeli citizen Gal Luft was originally charged on Nov. 1, 2022 and arrested in February, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York.

Luft had already skipped out on his bail while in Cyprus awaiting extradition to the U.S. for the case in March—though he alleges that the sprawling case against him represents political persecution and retaliation by the Biden administration against a potential witness.

The House Oversight Committee has for months touted a secret “informant” who could provide evidence of an alleged “quid pro quo” deal for foreign aid between an Obama-era Biden and an unnamed country—though details of the arrangement remain murky and unverified at best.

Those claims partially unraveled when Rep. James Comer (R-KY) in May held a much-hyped press conference in which he promised to expose the preliminary findings of four months’ worth of scrutiny into the Biden family’s business dealings—while failing to air any real evidence of corruption. He then offered a partial excuse for the failure: their star witness had up and disappeared.

The situation was memorialized in a much-publicized Fox News interview, in which a credulous Maria Bartiromo appeared shocked by the revelations.

“Well, unfortunately, we can’t track down the informant,” the Kentucky representative said. “We’re hopeful that the informant is still there. The whistleblower knows the informant. The whistleblower is very credible.”

“We’re hopeful that we can find the informant,” Comer added. “Remember, these informants are kind of in the spy business, so they don’t make a habit of being seen a lot or being high-profile or anything like that.”

Luft then came forward days later in an interview with New York Post opinion columnist Miranda Devine, alleging that he was hiding out in an undisclosed location after being arrested on charges including international arms dealing, as well as a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, among other charges.

“The chances of me getting a fair trial in Washington are virtually zero,” he told Devine as the reason he skipped out on his bail. “I had to do what I had to do.”

Despite the allegations, Comer doubled down on Friday, tweeting that Luft is a “very credible witness on Biden family corruption,” who “provided incriminating evidence to six officials from the FBI and the DOJ in a meeting in Brussels in March 2019.”

“We have no reason to believe the FBI & DOJ acted on this info,” he continued.

On Sunday, Republican Senator Ron Johnson (WI) added Luft should be granted immunity.

“Now, he’s literally fleeing for his life right now,” Johnson told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo. “He’s on the run. He’s an important witness. He needs to be granted immunity to be able to testify and tell his story.”

Monday’s unsealed charges add some clarity to the laundry list of alleged crimes Luft is accused of—including a 2016 scheme to “recruit and pay” a White House adviser to support China-friendly policies without first filing as a foreign agent.

According to a release from the Justice Department, Luft is also accused of brokering arms deals with Chinese businesses to sell their wares in places such as the United Arab Emirates, Kenya and Libya—all without a valid U.S. license. Federal authorities allege that they have proof Luft hawked anti-tank launchers, grenade launchers, mortar rounds, aerial bombs, rockets and even drones.

To make matters worse, Justice Department prosecutors say he lied to them during interviews about the alleged scheme.

“During a voluntary interview with U.S. law enforcement in which he was asked questions about his involvement in arms trafficking, LUFT made multiple false statements, including that he had not sought to engage in or profit from arms deals,” the department’s statement reads.

Luft is also accused of brokering deals for Iranian oil—which he falsely labeled “Brazilian”—in violation of U.S. sanctions.

In all, Luft faces 36 counts that carry a maximum of 100 years in prison, according to the Justice Department.

14 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 10 months

Text

United States lawmakers are moving with uncommon speed to close a loophole in federal law that police and intelligence agencies use to collect sensitive information on US citizens—up to and including their physical whereabouts—all without the need for a warrant.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Defense Intelligence Agency are among several government entities known to have solicited private data brokers to access information for which a court order is generally required. A growing number of lawmakers have come to view the practice as an end run around the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable government searches and seizures.

“This unconstitutional mass government surveillance must end,” Warren Davidson, Republican congressman from Ohio, says.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee, led by Ohio’s Jim Jordan, a Republican, will hold a markup hearing tomorrow to consider a Davidson bill aimed at restricting purchases of Americans’ data without a subpoena, court order, or warrant. If passed into law, the legislation's restrictions would apply to federal agencies as well as state and local police departments. Known as the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, the bill is cosponsored by four Republicans and four Democrats, including the committee’s ranking member, Jerry Nadler, a Democrat, who first introduced it alongside California Democrat Zoe Lofgren in 2021.

Notably, the bill's protections extend to data obtained from a person's account or device even if hacked by a third party, or when disclosure is referenced by a company's terms of service. The bill's sponsors note this would effectively prohibit the government from doing business with companies such as Clearview AI, which has admitted to scraping billions of photos from social media to fuel a facial recognition tool that's been widely tested by local police departments.

“The principle here is simple,” Nadler said when the legislation was first introduced two years ago. “The government should not be allowed to purchase its way around the rules Congress has enacted to protect the privacy of American citizens.”

In addition to Davidson, Nadler, and Lofgren, the bill is cosponsored by Republicans Andy Biggs, Ken Buck, and Thomas Massie, joining two other Democrats, Pramila Jayapal and Sara Jacobs. An aide to Jim Jordan, the Judiciary Committee's Republican chairman, signaled that he would likewise support the bill, highlighting the degree to which domestic surveillance fears have risen to supersede fractious politics. The bill had been previously introduced by a bipartisan group of senators in 2021 and had acquired more than 20 cosponsors, including Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader. However, the legislation ultimately failed to make much headway in Congress.

A report declassified last month by the nation’s top intelligence official, Avril Haines, stated that a “large amount” of “sensitive and intimate information” has been purchased by the intelligence community, including information that the US Supreme Court has previously ruled is protected by the Fourth Amendment. Senior congressional sources say many lawmakers were taken aback by the apparent breadth of the collection and of the warnings in the report about its potential to “facilitate blackmail, stalking, harassment, and public shaming.”

Other lawmakers are alarmed by the FBI’s disclosure of having purchased location information derived from people’s cell phones. During a hearing in March, the FBI director, Christopher Wray, told senators that the bureau had “previously—as in the past—purchased some such information for a specific national security pilot project.”

Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the US Supreme Court says, when it comes to certain digital information, including that which could reveal “the whole of their physical movements.” Such data—which the court describes as “detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled”—need not be GPS-precise merely to justify a warrant. Nevertheless, the government has widely adopted the view that the Fourth Amendment does not apply when that same data is available to it commercially.

When provided, the government's reasoning typically hinges on analysis of the landmark 2018 Carpenter v. United States decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government’s warrantless acquisition of cellular records, which can be used to track a person’s movements, had violated the rights of a 32-year-old man who'd been convicted of carrying out a string of robberies.

In its 5–4 opinion, the court refers to police demanding or “compelling” access to data, something that literal interpreters of the law say places commercial arrangements with data brokers squarely outside the scope of the court opinion. What's more, government lawyers have pointed to acknowledgment from the court that the debate over Carpenter did not consider “collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security.”

The Supreme Court has erstwhile framed the Fourth Amendment as a means to “plac[ing] obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance,” something that the Constitution’s authors deemed a “greater danger to a free people than the escape of some criminals from punishment.” Oft-cited by the court is a passage by a 19th-century American jurist: “Of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers, from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.”

What rules or guidelines do exist within the intelligence community for purchasing commercial data often justify the activity by deeming the information “publicly available,” pointing to the fact that it may be open for purchase by not only private companies but foreign governments as well. While true and worrying, that is also irrelevant, says Bob Goodlatte, the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who now works as a senior policy adviser for the Project for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability, a pro-privacy group.

“None of those other entities can arrest you, can charge you with a crime, try you, sentence you, imprison you, restrain you, enjoin you, fine you, tax you,” Goodlatte says. “All of those are powers of government, and any American should be concerned about the ease with which the federal government can gather information about people.”

Sean Vitka, a senior attorney at the nonprofit Demand Progress, whose slate of issues encompasses privacy and national security reforms, says domestic surveillance was proving to be one of the most bipartisan issues today in Congress, pointing not only to tomorrow’s markup hearing but a concurrent battle being fought over similar purchases by the US military. The House of Representatives last week voted to support an amendment to a defense spending bill requiring a warrant for all data typically protected by the Fourth Amendment, regardless of whether it's for sale. (The amendment was narrowed earlier in the week to exclude non-military agencies, including state and local police departments, which do not fall under the committee of jurisdiction's purview.)

The defense measure, and even the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, is a mere prelude to a much bigger fight coming this fall over what's considered the “crown jewel” of the US intelligence community: Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

“We are now seeing momentous alignment of powerful political actors in favor of enacting major privacy protections for people in the United States,” says Vitka, “on the eve of the biggest fight over warrantless surveillance in generations.”

9 notes · View notes

ausetkmt · 11 months

Text

CHRONOLOGY OF AMERICAN RACE RIOTS AND RACIAL VIOLENCE p-4

1947 Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR) join forces in the Journey of Reconciliation, a precursor to the Freedom Rides, which tested a Supreme Court decision declaring segregation on interstate buses to be unconstitutional. 1948 Publication of Walter White’s autobiography A Man Called White. 1949 August– September Peekskill, New York, riots. 1954 May U.S. Supreme Court renders decision in Brown v. Board of Education case, declaring a segregated educational system to be ‘‘inherently unequal.’’ July Robert Patterson founds the White Citizens’ Council in Indianola, Mississippi. 1955 Queen Mother Audley Moore founds the Reparations Committee of Descendants of the United States Slaves. Foundation of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), a southern-based civil rights organization led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other black ministers. August Fourteen-year-old Emmett Louis Till, an African American boy from Chicago, is murdered for allegedly whistling at a white woman. 1956–1971 The FBI Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) investigates and disrupts dissident domestic organizations, including civil rights groups. 1957 September President Dwight D. Eisenhower signs the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first piece of civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. 1959 February Mack Charles Parker is lynched in Mississippi for allegedly raping a white woman. 1960 February Four black college students stage a ‘‘sit-in’’ at Woolworth’s whites-only lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina. Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) is founded. April Biloxi Beach, Mississippi, riot. 1961 May First Freedom Ride. 1962 Harlem Youth Opportunities Unlimited (HARYOU) is founded. Robert F. Williams publishes Negroes with Guns, exploring Williams’ philosophy of black self-defense. October Two die in riots when President John F. Kennedy sends troops to Oxford, Mississippi, to allow James Meredith to become the first African American student to register for classes at the University of Mississippi. 1963 Publication of The Fire Next Time by James Baldwin. Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM) is founded. April Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., writes his ‘‘Letter from Birmingham Jail.’’

#CHRONOLOGY OF AMERICAN RACE RIOTS #AND RACIAL VIOLENCE p-4

2 notes · View notes

opedguy · 1 year

Text

GOP’S WEAPONIZATION COMMITTEE

LOS ANGELE (OnlineColumnist.com), Jan. 10, 2023.--Democrats already groaned over a new subcommittee chaired by new Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), 58, AKA “Weaponization Committee” to look into political abuses by federal government agencies. Democrats and the media want no part of an investigation into abuses under Democrat leadership of federal agencies for political purposes. Democrats and the press spent inordinate time investigating 76-year-old former President Donald Trump for alleged ties to the Kremlin, something alleged by 75-year-old former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2016 campaign an through Trump’s presidency. Liberal papers like the New York Times and Washington Post actually received Pulitzer Prizes from reporting on Trump’s alleged ties to the Kremlin. Not one of the stories has ever been vetted or validated for factual accuracy.

Democrats and the press didn’t like when 72-year-old former Atty. Gen. Bill Barr appointed 72-year-old former U.S. Atty. John Durham (R-Conn.) as Special Counsel to investigate improper federal investigations into Trump and his 2016 campaign. Jordan hopes his “weaponization” subcommittee can uses its subpoena power to interview old names like 62-year-old former FBI Director James Comey, former 68-year-old former CIA Director John Brennan and other past Democrat officials. Jordan and other Republicans want to know the extent of a government conspiracy in the Justice Department, FBI and CIA to prevent Trump in 2016 from becoming president, but, more importantly, how the federal agencies sabotaged Trump’s foreign policy during his presidency, including important relations with Russia, China and North Korea. Democrats vowed to push back or Jordan’s committee.

Democrats and the press don’t want the public to know that the DOJ, FBI and CIA were used to investigate Trump for purely political purposes. Democrats complain that the GOP’s Benghazi oversight committee implicated Hillary in poor oversight that resulted in the Sept. 11, 2012 deaths of 52-year-old Libyan Amb. Chris Stevens and three other U.S. citizens. Hillary once said under oath “what difference does than make,” regarding the lack of security at the Benghazi U.S. consulate at a time of anarchy in Libya. To Democrats, investigating Hillary’s role in Benghazi was dirty political trick. Democrats think that it’s OK for the White House, CIA, FBI National Security Agency [NSI], etc., to use whatever mean available to persecute political opponents. No oversight is necessary as long as Democrats are in power to use federal agencies to advance political agendas.

Jordan laid out the case for the Judiciary Committee oversight of Dmocrats abuse of federal agencies for political purposes. “We have a duty to get into these agencies and look at how they have been weaponized to go against he the very people they’re supposed to represent, how they have infringed on First Amendment liberties of the American people. And we’re going to do that,” Jordan told Fox News Sunday. “We are going to do it in a way that’s consistent with the Constitution. But we’re going to do it vigorously. We’re going to do aggressively. Because that’s out job,” Jordan said. Jordan knows that Durham had the authority but could not use subpoena power get former Obama administration officials under oath to answer questions about the Russian hoax that went on for years, even after 78-year-old Special Counsel Robert Mueller finished his final report March 23, 2019.

Democrats want to label Jordan’s “Weaponization Committee” another conspiracy theory or “the MAGA Grievance Committee,” doing everything to discredit the process. But with some much published evidence that Democrats abused federal agencies for political purposes, Jordan wants to know that extent of a “Deep State” conspiracy to damage Trump 2016, but, more importantly, his presidency. How many times did Democrats and the press accuse Trump of inappropriate ties to dictators like 70-year-old President Vladimir Putin, 69-year-old Chinese President Xi Jinping or North Korean President Kim Jong-un? Democrats and the press don’t question how Biden wrecked U.S.-Russian and U.S.-Chnese relations, leaving U.S. national security in shambles. Democrats and the press have no problem with Biden pushing the U.S. closer into WW III.

Democrats and the press already refer to Jordan’s “Weaponization Committee” as the “hard right” or “MAGA” investigations, doing everything possible to discredit the investigation before it starts. Democrats and the press want to bury for posterity what happened during Trump’s 2016 campaign and presidency. Jordan wants to expose for all to see how federal agencies were used for political purposes. Former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey knew the case against Trump was built of Hillary’s paid opposition research AKA the Steele dossier, all fabricated rubbish designed to discredit Trump’s 2016 campaign. Using fake probable cause to initiate an FBI counterintelligence investigation was outrageous but never questioned, especially by Democrats and the press. Jordan wants to prevent federal agencies from abuse by covert political operatives.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

2 notes · View notes

dertaglichedan · 8 days

Text

House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Treasury Sec. Janet Yellen

Americans had their private financial data shared after January 6

DailyMail.com reveals seven new financial institutions under investigation

READ MORE: Biden admits surveilling citizens' private financial transactions

At least 13 financial institutions are being investigated by Republicans in Congress for colluding with the federal government to spy on Americans after the January 6 protests looking for 'extremism' indicators.

The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government led by top Republican Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is investigating 'collusion' between U.S. banks and federal agencies in the aftermath of the Capitol riot.

The Biden administration worked with banks to comb through 'extremism' indicators like the purchase of a religious text, like a Bible, or searches including the terms 'MAGA' and 'TRUMP,' according to shocking revelations by the committee.

Bank of America, Chase, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Citi Bank and Truist were already being targeted in the probe looking to expose how the U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the FBI worked together.

Now, DailyMail.com can first reveal that seven other financial firms are also under investigation for ties to an FBI and FinCEN plot to spy on Americans' private banking transactions without first obtaining a warrant.

Charles Schwab, HSBC, MUFG, PayPal, Santander, Standard Chartered and Western Union have all been asked to turn over documents and communications with FinCEN and the FBI to the committee, according to letters exclusively obtained by DailyMail.com

0 notes

graymanbriefing · 29 days

Photo

Government Oversight Brief: National 》The federal government, from 2020 to 2024, awarded $324 million in grants to organizations that produce podcasts and a review of 58 of those podcasts (produced with $8+ million of taxpayer funds) created content on an array of "woke" topics such as "building a queer farmer community", "the little pronoun that could (Swedish gender neutral pronouns)", "Satanists play an important role in American religious and political life", "issues and stories affecting trans and intersex lives in Zimbabwe", fe...(CLASSIFIED) 》The House Judiciary Committee’s report on the collusion between the federal government and "big banks" shows increased financial surveillance of U.S. citizens. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) sent banking institutions lists of terms that the government deemed to be indicators of "potential violent extremism" and suggested that banks use the search terms to flag suspicious transactions. This includes lawful activities, such as "frequent ATM withdrawals and wire transfers with no apparent economic or business purpose" and "purchases that appear excessive or unusual for hobbyist or other legitimate use" as potential indicators of violent extremism. In another document, FinCEN deemed purchases of "privacy-preserving tools, such as virtual private networks (VPNs)", cou...(CLASSIFIED) 》The federal government is surveilling and generating profiles for citizens in a portal operated by the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC). The effort is a collaborative campaign tool used by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Office of Private Sector. The private sector centric campaign is claimed to be an effort to encourage participating companies to "monitor their employees and report those who oppose firearm restrictions, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or support border security, branding them as potential domestic extremists". An investiga...(CLASSIFIED, get briefs in real-time unredacted by joining at www.graymanbriefing.com)

#News #Intel #Situational Awareness #Prepping

0 notes

mightyflamethrower · 2 months

Text

In 2011, then Homeland Security Advisor to President Obama, John Brennan, swore before Congress that drone-targeted assassination missions near the Pakistani border had not led to “a single collateral death.”

That was an obvious lie with grave consequences, given that Brennan was sworn under oath and was one of the top officials in the US national security community. Yet there were no subsequent repercussions.

In fact, the opposite occurred. Brennan was subsequently rewarded with a 2013 appointment as CIA Director.

But the next year, once again, Brennan lied to Congress, assuring the Senate Intelligence Committee that his CIA had not secretly accessed senate staffers’ computers. Again, there were no consequences for his repeated lies. Instead, Brennan, upon retirement, went on to be an MSNBC/NBC analyst who helped to promulgate the Russian collusion/laptop disinformation hoaxes.

In 2013, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also lied under oath to Congress when he laughably stated that the National Security Agency did not spy on American citizens. Later, when called out by senators, Clapper fudged in a televised interview. “I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying no.” Try that contortion with the IRS.

Some members of Congress referred a criminal complaint of perjury against Brennan to then Attorney General Eric Holder. Nothing happened. Again, one of the chiefs of the American national security community was exempted after lying to members of Congress.

Clapper went on to a lucrative position as a CNN national security analyst, and at one point he claimed that Trump was a Putin “asset.”

As far as Eric Holder, he had earlier defied a congressional subpoena and was held in contempt by the House. The Department of Justice, however, chose not to pursue the complaint. Later in the Trump administration, Trump adviser Peter Navarro would be sentenced to four months in jail for similarly resisting a congressional subpoena. Was it a crime or not to resist a congressional subpoena?

The Justice Department’s Inspector General concluded that Andrew McCabe, the former FBI deputy director and interim director, had lied repeatedly to a variety of officials, including FBI Director James Comey, various FBI agents, and officials of the Office of the Inspector General.

On some of these occasions, McCabe was sworn under oath.

Yet in 2020, the Department of Justice chose not to pursue the IG’s criminal referrals. McCabe went on to become an outspoken CNN News contributor. Note that Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s National Security Advisor, was indicted—and convicted—for similarly lying to the FBI in 2017.

In 2016, an FBI investigation found that Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, had violated the law by transmitting and receiving classified information over an unsecured private server.

Subsequently, she destroyed thousands of emails and some devices, some of which were under subpoena. FBI Director James Comey found that “any reasonable person” should have known it was illegal to transmit classified information in such a sloppy fashion.

Comey, however, found that “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Translated, that meant Hillary Clinton had likely broken the law, but it was unlikely that any prosecutor like Comey would indict the then-current Democratic nominee for president and former Secretary of State—at least in the fashion that state and federal prosecutors would later file over 90 indictments against Donald Trump.

In 2018, the now-former FBI Director James Comey on some 245 occasions claimed under oath to Congress that he did not know or could not remember essential facts in the FBI Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Donald Trump, which he had authorized.

In addition, the Office of the Inspector General of the Justice Department found that Comey had broken the law by violating both DOJ and FBI policies, as well as the FBI’s employment agreement—especially by retaining in his personal safe copies of four bureau memos concerning a confidential conversation with President Trump.

Elements in the memos from that meeting likely contained classified information. Yet Comey leaked it to a friend without a security clearance in order to make it public. Despite the damning IG report, the Department of Justice chose not to prosecute Comey.

Is there a pattern here of likely guilt that is contextualized into a not guilty assessment—and not guilty due to the prosecutorial psychoanalysis of the jury—that a guilty verdict would be difficult to obtain?

Or sometimes prosecutors make the assumption that there was no criminal intent on the part of such a well-known public figure or that the crime was relatively inadvertent.

In other words, the above suspects were guilty of breaking laws, many of them felonies, but prosecutors chose not to prosecute them. And this same exemption reappears in the two most recent cases of felony exemption due to extenuating political or ideological circumstances.

Special Counsel Robert Hur—charged with examining whether President Joe Biden unlawfully removed classified documents, crimes for which the other special counsel, Jack Smith, was concurrently indicting Donald Trump—recently found the President culpable for removing classified files.

Hur noted that Biden had unlawfully and knowingly removed and retained classified files since his senate days—or possibly over a half-century. Biden had also removed the files to multiple locations, few of which were secure.

Hur compiled photos of the mess in Biden’s garage, where files were stored in delipidated boxes. Moreover, Biden removed them not inadvertently. He did so to further his political career and to profit by providing a ghostwriter with classified material to enhance his memoirs—which had garnered an $8 million advance in a book deal.

Biden, as a senator and vice president, had no legal authority to declassify any of these classified files. Hur further found that Biden made the files’ presence and contents known to his ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer. The latter had no security clearance to view such documents.

In addition, Biden was on tape at least as early as 2017, admitting that he was in violation of the law. Yet he did not come forward for nearly six years. And when he did contact authorities, it was only in fear that his own DOJ’s special counsel was soon to indict Trump for the very same exposure—willfully retaining files at his home that he knew were classified.

Worse still, ghostwriter Zwonitzer willfully destroyed state’s evidence when he erased his incriminating tapes (recovered partially by Hur through forensics and transcripts). Yet, mysteriously, he was never prosecuted for obstruction of justice or destroying requested materials.

After reviewing Biden’s culpability, Hur chose not to prosecute him. As he put it, “Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency, when he was a private citizen.”

And why the exemption? Hur explained his reasons further:

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Translated, Biden was likely guilty but, in Hur’s view, too cognitively challenged and thus too sympathetic a figure to be found guilty—but apparently not enough impaired to serve as President of the United States.

Finally, we come to the case of Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor Fani Willis. Judge Scott McAfee chose not to remove her from leveraging a racketeering charge against Trump despite clear evidence that she had lied under oath and was likely guilty of obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and fraud.

Two associates of Fani Willis testified that she had a romantic relationship with a clearly unqualified Nathan Wade before she appointed him as her chief special Trump prosecutor. Wade had no criminal trial experience, was sexually involved with Willis, and took her on expensive junkets in quid pro quo fashion.

Telephone records located Willis and Wade at her residence during times when they had sworn there was no romantic relationship. Thousands of personal texts between the two confirmed their intimacy. Willis produced no proof she had ever paid Wade back for the expensive trips he took her on, lamely pleading that she had reimbursed him with cash—although she produced no records to that effect.

Willis had campaigned for office and raised money on promises to get Trump. She had come up with the novel idea of using a racketeering charge to indict him for questioning the 2020 Georgia balloting. Both in her testimony and a church appearance, Willis played the race card, alleging that she was the victim of racial bias.

Yet despite lying under oath, colluding with Wade to produce near identical testimonies, and having no clear defense of her free trips from Wade, Judge McAfee chose not to dismiss her from the case, despite giving her the option to remove Wade.

That was an incoherent decision, given that Willis had hired Wade, had become romantically involved with him, and had collated their testimonies. Willis, not Wade, was the architect of the deceit and yet remained free to continue her prosecution of Trump.

As in the Hur case, in compensatory fashion, McAfee editorialized about the roguery of the two. And also, as in the Hur case, the judge essentially exempted Willis from the legal consequences that her criminality had earned.

“However, an odor of mendacity remains. The Court is not under an obligation to ferret out every instance of potential dishonesty from each witness or defendant ever presented …Yet reasonable questions about whether the District Attorney and her hand-selected lead SADA testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it.”

In the end, the judge gave Willis the choice to remove herself or her paramour Wade from the prosecution; she chose Wade.

But apparently forgotten was the reality that Willis, not Wade, appointed such an unqualified boyfriend as her chief counsel and established his compensation. It was Willis, not Wade, who was the recipient of free trips and perks. It was Willis, not Wade, who was most contradicted by other witnesses. And, of course, Willis, not Wade, was the driver behind the entire prosecution of the ex-president and current leading contender for the presidency.

What are the common denominators of such exempted criminality?

First, we can start by identifying those who were not exempted due to an asymmetrical application of our laws. Trump advisor Peter Navarro was convicted and sentenced to jail for failure to obey a congressional subpoena in the manner that both Eric Holder and Hunter Biden were not.

Trump was indicted for making false statements in a manner that Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Wade, and Willis were not. Biden disclosed classified materials. Comey likely did as well. And Clinton clearly violated the law by knowingly using an unsecured server for classified material. None were indicted.

Second, in such high-profile cases, prosecutors and judges find ways to justify not charging or pursuing those they deem guilty of breaking the law, either by claiming—in the fashion Comey did in the Clinton case or Hur did with Biden—a jury, in their opinion, would not convict them.

But since when do such prosecutors with ample funding and resources predicate guilt or innocence, not based on the facts of the case, but whether the defendant would appear sympathetic to a jury or perhaps too powerful to risk such a controversial indictment?

Third, to excuse their laxity or unequal application of the law, judges and prosecutors blast the soon-to-be excused defendant, as if such editorialization makes up for preferential exemption. So Joe Biden is not prosecuted for clearly unlawfully removing classified files. But as a booby prize, Hur offers up the sting of Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Judge McAfee, more or less, does not pursue a clearly guilty Willis but offers us the compensatory, “However, an odor of mendacity remains.”

Almost all the prosecutorial decisions not to pursue these guilty parties—a McCabe, a Comey, a Brennan—are couched with excuses and contextualizations rarely, if ever, offered to most Americans.

Fourth, all these people are an incestuous lot. Holder does not prosecute Clapper or Brennan, but himself was not prosecuted for resisting a congressional subpoena. Comey lets Hillary off, but he himself is let off after leaking a likely classified document. A Biden-administration-appointed special prosecutor exempts Biden, but another Biden prosecutor indicts Trump. After receiving their exemptions, the pots Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and McCabe all turn up on cable news blasting the kettle Trump.

What is the common explanation for all this madness?

Our criminal justice system no longer treats the accused equally under the law. If the defendant is deemed a conservative, like a Michael Flynn, Peter Navarro, or Donald Trump, then the full force of prosecution falls upon them.

But if a Biden, Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Holder, or Willis, then the state contorts itself to find excuses, exemptions, and mitigating circumstances not to pursue justice—and so often to the point of absurdity and the erosion of Americans’ confidence in their laws. In these high-profile cases in this polarized era, a cynical public now expects any accused prominent leftist to remain unindicted, while any non-leftwing target will be indicted, convicted, and jailed—for the same alleged offenses.

#political humor #election 2024 #media bias

0 notes

beardedmrbean · 6 months

Text

The historic corruption trial of ex-Chicago Ald. Edward Burke restarted Tuesday with the questioning of more potential jurors, who so far have been asked everything from whether they know what ward they live in to the names and breeds of their dogs.

One thing the jury pool did not see as they assembled in the 25th Floor ceremonial courtroom for coffee and donuts Tuesday morning: The large wall display featuring famous public corruption cases at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, including former Illinois governors Rod Blagojevich and George Ryan.

Per the request of Ed Burke’s attorneys, the display, part of larger montage about the court, was covered up with brown paper and cordoned off by a black screen so Burke’s jurors don’t see it.

It is likely that jury selection will stretch into Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall said from the bench as the proceedings began Tuesday.

Burke’s family, including his wife Anne and at least one of his sons, sat in the front row alongside a priest who attended to support the former alderman. Burke swiveled in his chair and smiled broadly at them as they arrived.

Anne Burke, a former state Supreme Court justice, examined a printed copy of a spreadsheet with details about each prospective juror.

Among those questioned Tuesday morning were a social worker who works for an Alzheimer’s organization and a mother of seven who loves NASCAR. A Wicker Park man in his 20s said he already knew a little about the Burke case.

“I’m not sure how impartial I could be,” he said, a little shyly. The judge said they would discuss that at sidebar.

Jury selection got off to a slow start Monday, with attorneys questioning only 20 of the 53 prospective jurors on Monday’s panel. The rest of that group will be questioned Tuesday before another panel of 50 is expected to get its turn.

Kendall has said they need to get about 44 people who make it through “for cause” strikes before proceeding to the next phase.

Among the citizens questioned so far who could decide the fate of a legendary Chicago political figure: a part-time butcher, a Chicago Public Schools teacher, and a retired IRS agent with a passion for roller skating.

The son of a Democratic ward boss and alderman, Burke, 79, served more than 50 years on the City Council and allegedly ran the Finance Committee like his own personal fiefdom before his office was dramatically raided by the FBI in November 2018.

[ From Chicago machine maestro to indicted alderman, Ed Burke’s corruption trial follows half-century of clout ]

When the judge Monday asked the potential jurors if anyone knew Burke, a woman raised her hand and said she knows him from “the country club,” presumably meaning the Beverly Country Club, which was staked out by the FBI as part of the investigation. Kendall said they would ask about it more specifically when it’s the woman’s turn to be interviewed.

The judge and attorneys delved deep into jurors’ hobbies and personal lives, down to their favorite “Ted Lasso” characters and the names of their pets.

Prospective jurors who live in Chicago were asked if they knew who their alderman was. Generally they answered that they did not. A few said they had heard of Burke, but didn’t know details about his case.

Burke is charged with 14 counts including racketeering, federal program bribery, attempted extortion, conspiracy to commit extortion and using interstate commerce to facilitate an unlawful activity.

Burke’s longtime ward aide, Peter Andrews Jr., 73, is charged with one count of attempted extortion, one count of conspiracy to commit extortion, two counts of using interstate commerce to facilitate an unlawful activity, and one count of making a false statement to the FBI.

The third defendant, Cui, 52, of Lake Forest, is charged with one count of federal program bribery, three counts of using interstate commerce to facilitate an unlawful activity, and one count of making a false statement to the FBI.

All three have pleaded not guilty.

At the heart of the indictment are more than a hundred secretly recorded meetings and phone calls allegedly showing Burke using his elected office to win benefits for himself, mostly through business for his private law firm.

Burke’s defense team, meanwhile, will try to show that Burke’s maneuvering was nothing more than politics as usual. In fact, Burke is not charged with performing a single official act as alderman in exchange for anything of value, and some of the projects he allegedly put his thumb on the scale for weren’t even in his ward, his attorneys have argued.

The crux of Burke’s defense will likely be to knock down former Ald. Daniel Solis, who was caught in his own corruption scheme before agreeing in 2016 to become an FBI mole and secretly record Burke and others over a period of nearly two years.

#nunyas news

4 notes · View notes

arpov-blog-blog · 2 months

Text

..."Republicans had found out a confidential human source told his FBI handler in 2020 about a Ukrainian oligarch saying he bribed Joe Biden. They demanded the Justice Department hand over the so-called FD-1023 form documenting the tip.

In response to a subpoena, the Justice Department said such documents should never be made public, warning it could endanger their sources and that the forms generally contain unverified and incomplete information told to an FBI agent.

“Recording the information does not validate the information, establish its credibility, or weigh it against other information known or developed by the FBI,” Christopher Dunham, from the FBI’s office of congressional affairs, said in a May letter to House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-Ky.).

“The mere existence of such a document would establish little beyond the fact that a confidential human source provided information and the FBI recorded it,” Dunham said. “Indeed, the FBI regularly receives information from sources with significant potential biases, motivations, and knowledge, including drug traffickers, members of organized crime, or even terrorists.”

Republicans did not heed the warning.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) soon obtained the form from an unknown source and posted it on his Senate website. The document described the informant’s account of conversation with Mykola Zlochevsky, head of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, and other Burisma officials. In one conversation, Zlochevsky said he’d paid both Hunter and Joe Biden $5 million in bribes.

The unverified bribery allegation soon became a core part of House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry against the president. The supposed bribe fit a narrative that Joe Biden, when he was vice president in 2015, demanded Ukraine fire its prosecutor general in order to protect Burisma from a criminal investigation. The president’s son, Hunter Biden, held a position on Burisma’s board at the time.

As Republicans put it in a document outlining the basis for their impeachment inquiry last fall, the form alleged “that President Biden directly participated in a bribery scheme involving Burisma.”

Then, last week, the bribe claim collapsed in spectacular fashion when the Justice Department announced charges against the informant, revealing him to be a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen named Alexander Smirnov and accusing him of inventing the allegation because he didn’t like Joe Biden.

“We were warned at the time that we received the document outlining this witness’s testimony. We were warned that the credibility of this statement was not known,” Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), an impeachment skeptic, told CNN on Wednesday. “And yet, my colleagues went out and talked to the public about how this was credible and how it was damning and how it proved President Biden’s — at the time, Vice President Biden’s — complicity in receiving bribes.”

Democrats have called on Republicans to call off their impeachment inquiry.

“They were willing to use anything they could get their hands on to make incredibly bold accusations that now results with them having egg on their face because they knew this was uncorroborated,” Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Thursday. “They knew it was unverified and they knew there was a lot of evidence to the contrary and yet they ran with this.”

0 notes