Categories
Amy berman jackson DOJ Donald Trump Intelwars Justice Department Mueller investigation Robert Mueller William Barr

Federal judge orders release of critical DOJ memo used to clear Trump of criminal charges in Mueller probe

A federal judge has ordered the Department of Justice to release a critical legal memorandum prepared by Justice Department lawyers in 2019 that cleared then-President Donald Trump of criminal charges related to Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia collusion and Trump’s presidential campaign.

What is the background?

Then-Attorney General William Barr wrote Congress on March 24, 2019, explaining that Mueller’s investigation “did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.” Secondly, Barr explained that Mueller did not make a determination whether Trump committed obstruction of justice, but instead left that decision to Barr, who subsequently decided that Trump would not face criminal charges.

Barr told Congress he reached his conclusion “in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan government watchdog, subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the government documents provided to Barr prior to his decision. Obtaining the documents for purposes of accountability was especially important because Mueller disputed Barr’s characterization of his investigatory findings.

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller said, in part, on March 27, 2019.

However, the DOJ refused to provide the documents, including the legal memo that Barr reviewed, arguing the memo was exempt from FOIA requests under exceptions for deliberative government decision making and attorney-client privilege.

What did the judge say?

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, released a scathing 41-page opinion Monday rejecting the DOJ’s arguments and ordered the critical memo to be released.

Jackson released her opinion after reviewing the memo for herself, and she said it contained “strategic, as opposed to legal advice.”

In part, Jackson took issue with the fact that not prosecuting Trump “was a given” for Barr’s DOJ.

“The review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given,” Jackson wrote.

Jackson went on to write:

Not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has
been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that
should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege. The agency’s redactions and incomplete
explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the
notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision
was on the table at any time.

In fact, Jackson discovered Barr’s letter to Congress and the legal memo from the Office of Legal Counsel were being prepared at the “same time,” all the more reason the memo should not be protected from FOIA requests.

“Since the memorandum was being written at the same time and by the same people who were drafting the Attorney General’s letter to Congress setting forth his views on the basis for a prosecution, and the record reflects that the priority was to get the letter completed first…one simply cannot credit the declarant’s statement that the Attorney General made the ‘decision’ he announced based on the advice the memo contains,” Jackson wrote.

Jackson gave the DOJ until May 17 to file a motion to stay the release of the memo.

Share
Categories
DOJ Intelwars Roger Stone Sues TAXES unpaid Wife

DOJ sues Roger Stone and wife for $2M in unpaid taxes, alleging fraud

The Justice Department sued longtime Trump ally Roger Stone and his wife, Nydia, in a civil lawsuit on Friday, alleging the couple owes unpaid taxes plus interest and penalties to the tune of nearly $2 million.

The feds accuse the Stones of using fraudulent measures to dodge paying up, but Mr. Stone says the suit is “politically motivated.”

What are the details?

The complaint filed in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, claims that the Stones underpaid their taxes in the years 2007 through 2011, and in 2018, and that they owe roughly $1.997 million in unpaid taxes, fines and interest.

NBC News noted that “the government also said the Stones at one point entered into an agreement to cover taxes owed through monthly installments of nearly $20,000, but stopped paying.”

The suit also accuses the Stones of moving more than $1 million of their personal funds to an LLC they own, called Drake Ventures, which the DOJ says “evaded and frustrated the IRS’s collection efforts.”

The Stones then allegedly paid “a substantial amount of their personal expenses” from the Drake Ventures accounts, according to the feds.

The lawsuit further states:

Although they used funds held in Drake Ventures accounts to pay some of their taxes, the Stones’ use of Drake Ventures to hold their funds allowed them to shield their personal income from enforced collection and fund a lavish lifestyle despite owing nearly $2 million in unpaid taxes, interest and penalties.

The suit was “commenced at the direction of the Attorney General of the United States,” Merrick Garland.

Roger Stone was a target of the Mueller investigation, under which he was found guilty of lying to Congress and was sentenced to 40 months in prison. But former President Trump commuted his sentence in July 2020 before he served any prison time. Trump then pardoned Stone before he left the White House.

In reaction to the DOJ’s lawsuit, Stone told the Associated Press on Friday:

“The Internal Revenue Service is well aware of the fact that my three-year battle for freedom against the corrupted Mueller investigation has left me destitute. They’re well aware that I have no assets and that their lawsuit is politically motivated. It’s particularly interesting that my tax attorneys were not told of this action, filed at close of business on a Friday. The American people will learn, in court, that I am on the verge of bankruptcy and that there are no assets for the government to take.”

Share
Categories
DOJ House ethics committee Intelwars Investigation Lawyer Matt gaetz Sex trafficking

House Ethics Committee launches investigation into Matt Gaetz as he hires legal team amid DOJ probe

The House Committee on Ethics announced Friday it has launched an investigation into Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) over claims stemming from the Department of Justice’s purported sexual misconduct probe of the lawmaker.

The same day, the office of the GOP firebrand confirmed that he has assembled a legal team to fight the “unfounded allegations” he is facing.

What are the details?

The Ethics Committee issued a statement saying, in part:

The Committee is aware of public allegations that Representative Matt Gaetz may have engaged in sexual misconduct and/or illicit drug use, shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to person use, and/or accepted a bribe, improper gratuity, or impermissible gift, in violation of House Rules, laws, or other standards of conduct.

The statement added that “the Committee notes that the mere fact that it is investigating these allegations, and publicly disclosing its review, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee.”

Gaetz has acknowledged that the DOJ is investigating him, but claims the probe was launched out of a criminal extortion plot led by a former DOJ official who sought $25 million from the congressman’s father.

The Florida Republican also wrote an op-ed earlier this week defending himself, saying that while he is “not a monk” he is “certainly not a criminal.” Gaetz did not mention the alleged extortion scheme in the piece.

After the DOJ probe made the news, further allegations against Gaetz surfaced, including a report from CNN claiming that he showed House colleagues nude photos and videos of females while bragging that he had slept with the women.

The New York Times also published a report claiming that the DOJ is focusing on Gaetz and indicted former Florida tax collector Joel Greenberg’s “involvement with multiple women who were recruited online for sex and received cash payments” from the men in exchange for drug-fueled hotel romps.

Greenberg, an ally of Gaetz’s, currently faces several felony charges including sex trafficking of a minor.

According to The Daily Beast, Venmo records show that Gaetz paid Greenberg a total of $900 one night in May of 2018, funds that were then passed along to three women — including an 18-year-old.

Gaetz has lost his legislative director and his communications director amid the scandal, but his office put out a statement Thursday from unnamed female aides in his office which read that “at no time has any one of us experienced or witnessed anything less than the utmost professionalism and respect,” adding that they “uniformly reject” the allegations against him “as false.”

The congressman’s office told Fox News on Friday that Gaetz had secured a legal team led by attorneys Marc Mukasey and Isabelle Kishner, who “will take the fight to those trying to smear his name with falsehoods.”

“Matt has always been a fighter,” the spokesperson told the outlet. “A fighter for his constituents, a fighter for the country, and a fighter for the Constitution. He’s going to fight back against the unfounded allegations against him.”

Share
Categories
DOJ FBI FREEDOM OF SPEECH Freedom of speech threatened Intelwars

Horowitz: FBI comes dangerously close to criminalizing free speech by indicting man for tweeting election memes

We have all shared this unsettling premonition that the attack on free speech is not just coming from Big Tech with the threat of censorship, but from the government backed by criminal prosecution. We are watching the government arrest hundreds of people not just for violence but for trespassing and negligible crimes at the Capitol when many of them were let into the building by the police. We are seeing the billboards and technology being used to hunt people down, as the most violent Antifa rioters are never arrested. No, this crackdown is not being driven by a concern for security and a sense of justice.

Well, now it’s confirmed that the government itself is rapidly headed toward criminalizing the speech of Trump supporters. The government is treating Antifa’s violence like speech and our speech like violence. What starts with bad behavior by Trump supporters (while ignoring what the other side does) will not end there.

Yesterday, a bizarre headline from the Justice Department’s Office of Public affairs caught my attention and raised the ire of many conservatives. “Social Media Influencer Charged with Election Interference Stemming from Voter Disinformation Campaign,” read the headline of a press release from the DOJ’s Eastern District of New York. That seemed odd to me because I’ve never seen such a vague and intangible charge after years of sifting through daily press releases from U.S. attorneys about espionage, trade theft, and gang activity. As I read further, my worst suspicions were confirmed.

“A Florida man was arrested this morning on charges of conspiring with others in advance of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election to use various social media platforms to disseminate misinformation designed to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote.”

Wow, that sounds interesting. So the DOJ is finally going after election fraud? Did this guy throw out ballots or engage in mail-in fraud like endless witnesses said in sworn affidavits and in testimony before legislatures? No, the DOJ is not interested in tangible fraud that involves an action; in fact, it is investigating any DOJ official who might have sought to investigate such fraud. It only prosecutes speech.

Douglass Mackey, aka Ricky Vaughn, 31, of West Palm Beach was taken into custody and charged with having “exploited a social media platform to infringe one the of most basic and sacred rights guaranteed by the Constitution: the right to vote,” according to Nicholas L. McQuaid, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

Again, I was confused how someone can use their own speech to infringe upon the right of a voter and actually succeed in stealing a vote.

After several paragraphs of DOJ officials bloviating about constitutional rights to vote, they finally announced his crime.

As alleged in the complaint, between September 2016 and November 2016, in the lead up to the Nov. 8, 2016, U.S. Presidential Election, Mackey conspired with others to use social media platforms, including Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages designed to encourage supporters of one of the presidential candidates (the “Candidate”) to “vote” via text message or social media, a legally invalid method of voting.

Boy, is that a mouthful! This standard would basically rope in half the country. The other half of the country always believes everything the other side is putting out is false information that is extremely dangerous. We’d all be in jail.

How exactly did the person engage in fraud?

For example, on Nov. 1, 2016, Mackey allegedly tweeted an image that featured an African American woman standing in front of an “African Americans for [the Candidate]” sign. The image included the following text: “Avoid the Line. Vote from Home. Text ‘[Candidate’s first name]’ to 59925[.] Vote for [the Candidate] and be a part of history.” The fine print at the bottom of the image stated: “Must be 18 or older to vote. One vote per person. Must be a legal citizen of the United States. Voting by text not available in Guam, Puerto Rico, Alaska or Hawaii. Paid for by [Candidate] for President 2016.”

The tweet included the typed hashtags “#Go [Candidate]” and another slogan frequently used by the Candidate. On or about and before Election Day 2016, at least 4,900 unique telephone numbers texted “[Candidate’s first name]” or some derivative to the 59925 text number, which was used in multiple deceptive campaign images tweeted by the defendant and his co-conspirators.

Folks, this is very scary. No, not the alleged crime, but that the feds are going after such behavior while ignoring sworn allegations of mass fraud. While what is alleged appears to be mean and spiteful, at the end of the day, there is no way to actually steal a vote with this subterfuge. Not unless someone thought that, based on a random internet tweet, they could vote via text, and without verifying anything thereafter, would have sent their text and then stayed home. By this standard, every governor who violated election law and actually facilitated the casting of ballots not pursuant to law should be in jail.

There are some really distasteful ways people use their freedom of speech – sometimes in a serious way or sometimes in a joking way – but the First Amendment was not written to protect benign speech. To arrest only one side of the divide for social media memes at a time when officials are letting cities burn is very concerning. And it opens a very slippery slope for the government to prosecute people for saying anything that the government believes is harmful.

Is it that hard to envision an FBI agent knocking on your door and saying, “You just wrote information telling people masks don’t work and to stop wearing them. You are engaging in fraud and are an accessory to murder!”

If you don’t believe me that this could happen, take a look at yesterday’s “National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin,” published by the Department of Homeland Security. The bulletin warns about threats from “Domestic Violent Extremists (DVEs) targeted individuals with opposing views engaged in First Amendment-protected, non-violent protest activity,” which include those “motivated by a range of issues, including anger over COVID-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results …”

Thus, they now consider opposing views and First Amendment-protected speech highlighting governmental actions taken against other rights under the guise of COVID as a national security threat on par with ISIS or Hezbollah.

“Threats of violence against critical infrastructure, including the electric, telecommunications and healthcare sectors, increased in 2020 with violent extremists citing misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 for their actions,” warns the bulletin. “DHS, as well as other Federal agencies and law enforcement partners will continue to take precautions to protect people and infrastructure across the United States.”

Mind you, as they treat our speech as terrorism, they fail to mention a word about Antifa seeking to overthrow the government and attacking government buildings, even Democrat Party offices.

Some might automatically object to this concern by saying that the individual in question used the speech to attempt to defraud people with a specific scheme. Thus, this would be speech that is buttressed by an action; namely, setting up a fraudulent voting number. Yes, tyranny will always begin with the veneer of justice and under the color of law. I am certainly not defending someone for doing this if he indeed is guilty of it. But what does it tell you that this is the one voter fraud indictment the DOJ will make while refusing to even look into any of the evidence of pro-Biden fraud presented in the state legislatures? What does it say that Antifa can destroy our streets every night and attack ICE buildings, yet the FBI is focused on Trump supporters?

In this case, the DOJ is not even charging the man with voter fraud, because indeed his alleged actions don’t fit the definition of any of those statutes. Instead, they bizarrely chose to focus on the fact that he worked with other people and therefore might have violated the generic “conspiracy against rights,” under 18 U.S. Code § 241. That title makes it a federal crime for “two or more persons” to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution …”

By that definition, every single governor and mayor should be arrested for conspiring to violate life, liberty, and property under lockdown policies. Voting is very important, but it is ultimately the result of law and can be taken away under some circumstances, unlike property rights and certainly freedom of speech.

The Department of Justice might have a legal case here from an extremely vague statute (to the extent it’s constitutional), but the asymmetry in its prosecutorial discretion is bordering on a sadistic two-tiered justice system. If this were Singapore and the government evenly and scrupulously prosecuted every minor offense to the letter of the law, I’d be less concerned about this. It would be one thing if the FBI had evidence of a number of people who used this text hotline and declined to actually vote, believing they had already voted. But there was no evidence of such a thing in the indictment, which makes it peculiar that they are focusing on this, even if they can find a crime to charge him with. This indictment, mixed with the other martial-law-like actions and the indefinite deployment of troops, is not coming from a good place and is headed to a good destination.

A friend of mine from Michigan, Garrett Soldano, got a call from the FBI last week because someone told them he is “an extremist.” If you are reading this and thinking you can still rigorously fight for conservative policies and not have to worry about the “law” coming after you as long as you act in accordance with the law, then you need to wake up before it’s too late. And don’t expect the “paragons of free speech” at the ACLU to be there for you in your time of need.

Share
Categories
Attorney General Barack Obama Biden administration DOJ Douglas kmiec Intelwars Joe Biden Justice Department

Lawyer for Reagan, Bush argues that Barack Obama should be attorney general in Biden administration

Should President-elect Joe Biden appoint former President Barack Obama to be his attorney general? That’s what a former attorney for two former Republican presidents is advocating.

Douglas Kmiec, professor emeritus of constitutional law at Pepperdine University School of Law who served in the Office of Legal Counsel for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W Bush, claimed in an essay for The Hill that appointing Obama as head of the Justice Department would “re-establish the rule of law.”

According to Kmiec, Biden, as president, “will need to be highly capable at reassuring estranged voters — Democrat, Republican or independent — that he is governing in the national interest” — and appointing Obama as attorney general accomplishes such a monumental task.

Kmiec explained:

Biden’s almost-plagiarized overuse of the red state/blue state metaphor from the 2008 election needs a definite boost of authenticity and actual demonstration of applied fairness. Instead of continuing to borrow Barack Obama’s trade line, he needs Obama himself. The fastest way to re-establish the rule of law is for Biden to nominate Obama as attorney general. If Biden simultaneously kept Christopher Wray as head of the FBI and made Justice’s current inspector general, Michael Horowitz, head of its Office of Legal Counsel, he would remove much division, doubt and uncertainty.

Still, Kmiec, who served as ambassador to Malta in the Obama administration, admitted such an appointment would be “unprecedented” — but called it “necessary.”

Surprisingly, Kmiec suggested that Obama serving as attorney general would serve as the perfect springboard for Obama to later serve on the Supreme Court.

“We have never had a former president take on the leadership of an executive department for a successor president, but nothing precludes it, save, possibly, Michelle Obama. We must leave those domestic relations to the former president — but [Obama] has the intelligence, youth and character to do the job,” Kmiec wrote.

“Besides, it’s perfect preparation for subsequent additional public service on the Supreme Court,” he added.

Who is Biden considering for AG?

According to CNN, the top contenders for the job are outgoing-Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland, and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is reportedly also under consideration for the job, although he has indicated that he is not interested in working for the Biden administration.

Share
Categories
Biden laptop DOJ Hunter biden Intelwars Joe Biden Ken buck special counsel William Barr

Lawmaker requests special counsel investigation into Hunter Biden, ‘potentially incriminating contents’ of laptop

Could Hunter Biden be the subject of the next special counsel investigation? That’s what Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) wants.

Buck sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr on Monday requesting that the Department of Justice initiate a special counsel investigation into the son of the media-declared president-elect, centering on Hunter Biden’s “conduct” and the “potentially incriminating contents” on the laptop in the FBI’s possession that purportedly belongs to Biden.

Hunter Biden. (Handout/DNCC via Getty Images)

A special counsel investigation is critical for maintaining confidence in national security, Buck said.

“This investigation is critical to defending the integrity of our republic and ensuring a potential Biden Administration will not be the subject of undue foreign interference,” Buck wrote. “Americans have the right to know whether Mr. Biden’s reported ties to foreign governments will make him the subject of blackmail attempts or other nefarious efforts to undermine U.S. national security or otherwise improperly influence American foreign policy.”

Buck went on to compare the necessity of a special counsel investigation now to when Robert Mueller was tasked with leading a special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“As you know, the Attorney General is granted the statutory authority to appoint a Special Counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 515 and 28 CFR § 600 to investigate and prosecute any matter that would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances,” Buck wrote.

“Similar to when the DOJ appointed Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, it is critical that this investigation continue free from political interference, no matter who is in the White House. We must guarantee the integrity of our government and the security of our republic,” the Colorado Republican added.

Barr has already appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is investigating the origins of the Russia investigation, as a special counsel, essentially preventing the incoming Biden administration from interfering in Durham’s work.

What’s the background?

The New York Post published a bombshell story in mid-October reporting that the paper had obtained the hard drive to a laptop that allegedly had belonged to Hunter Biden. The laptop, which had been dropped off at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019 and never picked up, turned out to be in the possession of the FBI for unknown reasons.

The story was significant for many reasons. Most importantly, emails on the hard drive, purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden, showed that Joe Biden had been more involved in Hunter Biden’s overseas work than the former vice president previously admitted.

Biden, however, has denied any wrongdoing.

Still, Democrats claimed the laptop story was “Russian disinformation” meant to sway the election in President Donald Trump’s favor just weeks before the election. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe later refuted such allegations.

“Let me be clear, the intelligence community doesn’t believe that, because there’s no intelligence that supports that, and we have shared no intelligence with Chairman [Adam] Schiff or any other member of Congress that Hunter Biden’s laptop is part of some Russian disinformation campaign — it’s simply not true,” Ratcliffe said in October.

Details about the laptop and why the FBI seized it remain murky. Fox News reported that investigators took the laptop in connection to a money-laundering investigation. Details about that investigation were not made public, nor has the FBI confirmed that such an investigation took place.

The most recent development in the story happened last month, when the computer repair shop owner closed his business and allegedly disappeared after receiving death threats.

Share
Categories
DOJ Intelwars

DOJ investigating alleged scheme involving bribe offered in exchange for presidential pardon

The Department of Justice is investigating allegations of a possible “bribery conspiracy scheme” in which “a substantial political contribution” was offered in exchange for a presidential pardon, according to heavily redacted court documents unsealed Tuesday.

What are the details?

CNN reported that the filings submitted in late August do not “reveal a timeline of the alleged scheme, or any names of people potentially involved, except that communications between people including at least one lawyer were seized from an office that was raided sometime before the end of the summer.”

No one appears to have yet been charged with any crimes, but the DOJ stated that “over fifty digital media devices, including iPhones, iPads, laptops, thumbs drives, and computer external hard drives” were seized in a probe involving what the government called a “secret lobbying scheme.”

The documents also pointed to “a related bribery conspiracy scheme in which [redacted] would offer a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence for [redacted].”

The White House declined to comment to CNN on the report.

An unnamed DOJ official did tell Fox News that “no government official was or is currently a subject or target of the investigation in this filing.”


DOJ investigates bribery scheme to obtain presidential pardon

www.youtube.com

Anything else?

President Donald Trump has faced scrutiny from Democrats for some of the pardons he has issued, particularly those granted to allies who were targeted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into allegations of Russian interference with the 2016 election — namely former campaign adviser Roger Stone and former national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn.

But Trump has only granted 28 pardons and 16 commutations of sentences during his four years in office, which is fewer than any president in more than 100 years.

Share
Categories
Carter Page DOJ FBI Fisa abuse Intelwars Sues

Carter Page sues FBI, DOJ, and individuals behind FISA abuse

Former 2016 Trump campaign adviser Carter Page has filed a massive lawsuit against the U.S. government as well as agencies and individuals responsible for illegally spying on him using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act orders.

What are the details?

The Federalist reported Friday that Page is seeking “no less than $75 million from the U.S. government, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigations,” and individuals involved with Operation Crossfire Hurricane, including fired FBI Director James Comey, fired assistant director Andrew McCabe, fired FBI deputy assistant director of counterintelligence Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

The complaint argues, in part:

The FBI did not have probably cause to lawfully obtain a FISA warrant [against Dr. Page]. Instead, the FBI used documents furnished by Christopher Steele, a Confidential Human Source (“CHS”). As the Crossfire Hurricane team knew, CHS Steele has been paid by the Democratic Party and/or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign to perform “political opposition research” and dig up dirt on a connection between the Trump campaign and Russia in order to divert attention from the investigation of Clinton’s email practices while she was Secretary of State.

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a report last year detailing problems found in the FISA process after investigating the FBI’s probe into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.

As TheBlaze previously reported:

The report also notes “17 significant errors” in the Carter Page FISA applications and “many additional errors” in the procedures that guide the FISA process. “These errors and omissions resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information to OI [the Office of Intelligence] and failing to flag important issues for discussion,” the report notes.

Following the release of Howoritz’s findings, chief FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer issued a scathing rebuke of the FBI’s handling of applications to spy and surveil Page, saying that other FISA applications now fall under question, writing: “The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.”

The Washington Examiner pointed out that Carter Page was never charged with any wrongdoing. The outlet further noted that McCabe signed off on the final FISA application to surveil Page.

Strzok and Lisa Page — former lovers whose anti-Trump text messages to one another fed speculation that Crossfire Hurricane was politically motivated — were key members of the probe. Both of them have also sued the FBI since leaving the agency.

Share
Categories
Bill barr DOJ Fox News Good morning mug club Intelwars Justice Department Steven Crowder

Bill Barr approves Justice Department probe into voting irregularities

Steven covers the latest breaking news including Fox’s censoring of the press secretary and Bill Barr’s new DOJ investigation. He then examines Trump’s success in developing a COVID vaccine with Operation Warp Speed and outlines some of the latest voting irregularities in Michigan.

.

Use promo code LWC to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Share
Categories
Cares act Coronavirus DOJ Intelwars Justice Department Nuke bizzle Unemployment fraud

DOJ: Rapper arrested for alleged $1.2M unemployment fraud, made whole song, music video about crime

The Department of Justice announced last week that federal authorities have arrested a rapper they claim defrauded the government of coronavirus-related unemployment benefits, then boasted about the fraud in an entire song and music video.

What are the details?

Rapper Nuke Bizzle, whose real name is Fontrell Antonio Baines, was arrested on Friday in Los Angeles for “fraudulently applying for more than $1.2 million in jobless benefits, including by using stolen identities,” according to the Justice Department.

Investigators claim Baines exploited the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance provision of the CARES Act, which was intended to expand pandemic benefits to independent contractors, self-employed workers, and others.

More from the DOJ:

According to an affidavit filed with the complaint, Baines possessed and used debit cards pre-loaded with unemployment benefits administered by the California Employment Development Department (EDD). The debit cards were issued in the names of third-parties, including identity theft victims. The applications for these debit cards listed addresses to which Baines had access in Beverly Hills and Koreatown.

Evidence gathered during the investigation established that at least 92 debit cards that had been pre-loaded with more than $1.2 million in fraudulently obtained benefits were mailed to these addresses, according to the affidavit. Baines and his co-schemers allegedly accessed more than $704,000 of these benefits through cash withdrawals, including in Las Vegas, as well as purchases of merchandise and services.

Officially, Baines is charged with three felonies: access device fraud, aggravated identity theft, and interstate transportation of stolen property.

Baines was initially taken into custody in Las Vegas on Sept. 23. At the time, he had eight debit cards in his possession, according to investigations, seven of which were allegedly not in his name.

What else happened?

According to investigators, evidence of the crime includes a song and music video in which they claim Baines boasts about his alleged crimes.

From the DOJ:

The affidavit further alleges that Baines bragged about his ability to defraud the EDD in a music video posted on YouTube and in postings to his Instagram account, under the handles “nukebizzle1” and “nukebizzle23.” For example, Baines appears in a music video called “EDD” in which he boasts about doing “my swagger for EDD” and, holding up a stack of envelopes from EDD, getting rich by “go[ing] to the bank with a stack of these” – presumably a reference to the debit cards that come in the mail. A second rapper in the video intones, “You gotta sell cocaine, I just file a claim….”


Nuke Bizzle Ft. Fat Wizza – EDD (Official Music Video)

www.youtube.com

A disclaimer on the video now reads, “THIS VIDEO WAS CREATED WITH PROPS AND WAS MADE FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES.”

Baines faces a maximum of 22 years in prison if convicted of all three charges.

Share
Categories
Aide author book DOJ Intelwars Melania Trump Stephanie winston wolkoff Sues

DOJ sues former aide of First Lady Melania Trump over tell-all book

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed suit against Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former aide to First Lady Melania Trump, alleging that she violated their nondisclosure agreement by penning a tell-all book and publishing it without first allowing the federal government to sign off on the draft.

What are the details?

Reuters reported:

In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, Justice Department lawyers said Winston Wolkoff, a former aide who fell out with the first lady, failed to submit to government review a draft of her book, “Melania and Me: The Rise and Fall of My Friendship with the First Lady,” which offers an unflattering portrayal of President Donald Trump’s wife.

According to the lawsuit, Winston Wolkoff signed a Gratuitous Services Agreement “wherein Ms. Wolkoff promised to maintain strict confidentiality over ‘nonpublic, privileged and/or confidential information’ that she might obtain during her service” as an adviser to the first lady.

Politico reported that the DOJ is asking a federal judge to “divert all proceeds from the sale of Wolkoff’s book, ‘Melania and Me,’ to the federal government, a consequence of her alleged ‘breach of contract.'”

Ms. Wolkoff argues that she has every right to talk about her experiences as a matter of free speech, telling NBC News of her book, “It’s my story. It’s my life. I’ve been gagged for too long.”

“The White House, President Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, the Trump administration have been the source of false, misleading and defamatory information about me,” she continued. “I am defending myself against the defamatory falsehoods according to my constitutional rights to defend my reputation and set the record straight.”

Anything else?

The case is reminiscent of when the DOJ sued former national security adviser John Bolton over the summer in an attempt to stop him from publishing his own book divulging his experiences in the Trump administration. In the lawsuit, the federal government argued that Bolton’s book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” would jeopardize national security.

Unlike Wolkoff, Bolton did submit a draft of his book for review by the federal government, but copies were distributed to retailers by Bolton’s publisher prior to receiving the all-clear from authorities.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth agreed to allow Bolton’s book to be published, saying that “the horse, as we used to say in Texas, seems to be out of the barn.”

Share
Categories
Attorney general william barr DOJ Indictment Intelwars Rep jim jordan Russia hoax

Will the Department of Justice EVER indict anyone involved in the alleged ‘Russia hoax’?

President Donald Trump indicated yesterday that Attorney General William Barr could have more than enough evidence to indict members of the Obama administration – including former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden – for allegedly spying on his campaign in 2016. But, will the Department of Justice ever indict anyone involved?

President Trump authorized the “total declassification” of any and all documents related to the Russia probe, as well as the FBI’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email debacle, on Tuesday.

“I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”
Trump tweeted.

Then, during a
Thursday morning interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, the president indicated that the DOJ has “plenty” of evidence against Obama administration officials whom he said “spied on my campaign.”

“These people should be indicted,” Trump told Bartiromo. “This was the greatest political crime in the history of our country, and that includes Obama and it includes Biden. These are people that spied on my campaign. And we have everything. Now they say they have much more, okay, and I say, ‘Bill [Barr], we got plenty, you don’t need anymore’.”

Rep. Jim Jordan joined The Glenn Beck Radio Program Friday to discuss the evidence President Trump may have been referring to, and whether he thinks the DOJ will actually indict anyone involved if the evidence supports his claims.

Glenn also asked Jordan if any Republicans in Congress are looking into how the Transition Integrity Project may lay out an even more insane attempt to oust President Trump. Learn more about the Transition Integrity Project here.

Watch the video below to catch more of Glenn’s conversation with Rep. Jim Jordan:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Share
Categories
Attorney general william barr DOJ Indictment Intelwars Rep jim jordan Russia hoax

Will the Department of Justice EVER indict anyone involved in the alleged ‘Russia hoax’?

President Donald Trump indicated yesterday that Attorney General William Barr could have more than enough evidence to indict members of the Obama administration – including former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden – for allegedly spying on his campaign in 2016. But, will the Department of Justice ever indict anyone involved?

President Trump authorized the “total declassification” of any and all documents related to the Russia probe, as well as the FBI’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email debacle, on Tuesday.

“I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”
Trump tweeted.

Then, during a
Thursday morning interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, the president indicated that the DOJ has “plenty” of evidence against Obama administration officials whom he said “spied on my campaign.”

“These people should be indicted,” Trump told Bartiromo. “This was the greatest political crime in the history of our country, and that includes Obama and it includes Biden. These are people that spied on my campaign. And we have everything. Now they say they have much more, okay, and I say, ‘Bill [Barr], we got plenty, you don’t need anymore’.”

Rep. Jim Jordan joined The Glenn Beck Radio Program Friday to discuss the evidence President Trump may have been referring to, and whether he thinks the DOJ will actually indict anyone involved if the evidence supports his claims.

Glenn also asked Jordan if any Republicans in Congress are looking into how the Transition Integrity Project may lay out an even more insane attempt to oust President Trump. Learn more about the Transition Integrity Project here.

Watch the video below to catch more of Glenn’s conversation with Rep. Jim Jordan:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Share
Categories
Attorney general william barr DOJ Indictment Intelwars Rep jim jordan Russia hoax

(ready)Will the Department of Justice EVER indict anyone involved in the alleged ‘Russia hoax’?

President Donald Trump indicated yesterday that Attorney General William Barr could have more than enough evidence to indict members of the Obama administration – including former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden – for allegedly spying on his campaign in 2016. But, will the Department of Justice ever indict anyone involved?

President Trump authorized the ”
total declassification” of any and all documents related to the Russia probe, as well as the FBI’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email debacle, on Tuesday.

“I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”
Trump tweeted.

Then, during a
Thursday morning interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, the president indicated that the DOJ has “plenty” of evidence against Obama administration officials whom he said “spied on my campaign.”

“These people should be indicted,” Trump told Bartiromo. “This was the greatest political crime in the history of our country, and that includes Obama and it includes Biden. These are people that spied on my campaign. And we have everything. Now they say they have much more, okay, and I say, ‘Bill [Barr], we got plenty, you don’t need anymore’.”

Rep. Jim Jordan joined The Glenn Beck Radio Program Friday to discuss the evidence President Trump may have been referring to, and whether he thinks the DOJ will actually indict anyone involved if the evidence supports his claims.

Glenn also asked Jordan if any Republicans in Congress are looking into how the Transition Integrity Project may lay out an even more insane attempt to oust President Trump. Learn more about the Transition Integrity Project here.

Watch the video below to catch more of Glenn’s conversation with Rep. Jim Jordan:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Share
Categories
DOJ hearing Intelwars jerry nadler judiciary committee Treatment William Barr

DOJ denies House Dems’ request for officials to testify citing  treatment of AG Barr in prior hearing

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd on Monday refused the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee’s request that Department of Justice officials testify in two upcoming hearings, saying he fears the question-and-answer sessions would deteriorate into “public spectacles” considering how Attorney General William Barr was treated by Democrats during a hearing in July.

What are the details?

In a letter to Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) obtained by BuzzFeed, Boyd responded to the committee’s request that his fellow Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband appear before a Judiciary subcommittee later this week, and that Bureau of Prison Director Michael Carvajal and U.S. Marshals Service Director Donald Washington testify before another Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Oct. 1.

Boyd told Nadler that while the DOJ “recognizes that the Committee has a legitimate interest in oversight of the Department,” the agency would not send the officials to testify because of the way Democrats treated Barr when he appeared before the full committee on July 28.

The assistant attorney general cited a New York Times story that reported, “Democrat after Democrat posed questions to Mr. Barr only to cut him off when he tried to reply, substituting their own replies for his.”

“All told, when the Attorney General tried to address the Committee’s questions, he was interrupted and silenced in excess of 70 times,” Boyd wrote, explaining:

“We very much regret that the Committee did not elect to engage in a meaningful, good-faith effort to obtain information and views from the Attorney General while he was present and prepared to testify. Having squandered its opportunity to conduct a meaningful oversight hearing with the Attorney General, it remains unclear how further public spectacles with other Department officials would now—a mere 14 legislative days since the Attorney General’s hearing—advance the Committee’s legitimate oversight efforts.”

Boyd also pointed out that Barr was made available to address the topics the committee wants to inquire about from other DOJ officials in the coming weeks, but that the Department “would be happy to work with [the committee] regarding the scheduling of additional oversight hearings in the future.”

During Barr’s July 28 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, there were a number of tense exchanges that commonly occur during hearings that are televised for the public.

In one particular moment that was blasted by some for its perceived pettiness, Chairman Nadler denied the attorney general’s request for a five-minute break to have lunch.

Nadler eventually gave in and allowed the recess following protest from other members and Barr himself who shook his head and laughed when he told Nadler, “You’re a real class act, Mr. Chairman. A real class act.”

Share
Categories
Bill barr Child pornographyans Cuties DOJ Intelwars Investigate Neflix republican

GOP lawmakers ask AG Barr to prosecute Netflix for distributing ‘Cuties’

Dozens of Republican members of Congress have signed on to a letter asking Attorney General William Barr to bring charges against Netflix for distributing the controversial film “Cuties,” saying the movie is “child pornography” under U.S. law, according to an exclusive report from The Daily Caller.

What are the details?

The letter sent by Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and signed by 33 more GOP members reads, in part:

“We’re writing to recommend you bring charges against Netflix, Inc. for the distribution of the film ‘Cuties,’ which contains child pornography. As defined by 18 U.S.C § 2256, child pornography is any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor, and that conduct does not need to specifically depict sexual activity to qualify.

“Cuties clearly meets the United States’ legal definition of child pornography. ‘Cuties’ contains, ‘a scene where an 11-year-old girl dressed in a tank and panties is splashed with water and begins twerking in a frenzied kind of way,’ and numerous other, equally distressing depictions of minors including the display of an 11-year-old child’s bare breast.”

The letter from federal lawmakers comes a week after Texas state Rep. Matt Schaefer called on the state’s attorney general to investigate “Cuties” “for possible violations of child exploitation and child pornography laws.”

Netflix sparked outrage last month after promoting the film’s rollout with a movie poster showing the little girls starring in the film about “sensual dance” appearing scantily-clad in suggestive poses.

The streaming platform apologized for the marketing materials and replaced them, but drew further backlash over several scenes in ‘Cuties” after the film was released. Clips showing the 11-year-old star and her peers dancing provocatively were widely shared on social media.

Numerous Republicans condemned Netflix for distributing “Cuties,” including Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who called on the platform to remove it from streaming. Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) also slammed the film, calling it “child porn” and telling Netflix the company is “now complicit.”

Netflix has defended the film, refuses to remove it and encourages critics to watch it, arguing that “is a social commentary against the sexualization of young children.” The company denies that the movie shows any child nudity.

The streaming giant has seen its U.S. cancellations spike nearly eightfold after an online campaign calling for people to boycott the company over “Cuties.” But Netflix remains defiant, and according to The Daily Caller, “‘Cuties’ was ranked the fourth most watched movie on Netflix in the United States” as of last Tuesday.

Share
Categories
Department of Justice DOJ Intelwars Portland arrests Portland mayor Portland protests Portland riots President Trump Ted Wheeler

74 rioters facing federal charges for crimes committed during Portland riots

The Department of Justice announced on Thursday that 74 people are facing federal charges for crimes committed during violent riots in Portland that have been happening since late May.

“For more than 90 consecutive nights, Portland has been home to large demonstrations and protests against police use of force and anti-Black racism,” the Department of Justice statement reads. “On many nights, after peaceful demonstrations end, various public and private buildings have been the target of vandalism and destruction. Local, state, and federal law enforcement working to protect these buildings and ensure the safety of peaceful demonstrators have been subjected to threats and assaults from violent agitators while performing their duties.”

“Violent agitators have hijacked any semblance of First Amendment protected activity, engaging in violent criminal acts and destruction of public safety,” U.S. Attorney Willias said. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office and our federal law enforcement partners are expeditiously working with local and state law enforcement to identify, arrest, and prosecute these individuals that are disrupting the rule of law in our communities and physically attacking our law enforcement officers and destroying property. Violent agitators not only delay real reform, but make our community less safe by keeping law enforcement from responding to other critical calls for service.”

Charges include arson, destruction of federal property, assaulting a federal officer, unlawful use of a drone, and failing to obey lawful orders. You can find a list of the defendants and charges below.

The federal charges come at a time when President Donald Trump and Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler (D) are quarreling over the use of federal law enforcement in Oregon’s largest city that has been rocked by civil unrest.

On Aug. 25, Trump urged Wheeler and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) to accept federal law enforcement.

“We again request Kate Brown (@OregonGovBrown), the Governor of Oregon, and Mayor @TedWheeler of Portland, to call up the National Guard like should have been done 3 months ago,” Trump tweeted. “They must stop calling these anarchists and agitators ‘peaceful protestors’. Come back into the real world! The Federal Government is ready to end this problem immediately upon your request.”

Brown replied, “Oregon isn’t interested in a role in your political theater, @realDonaldTrump. The @OregonGuard is focused on fighting wildfires, distributing PPE & helping with unemployment calls. I’d love to discuss what we actually need: financial resources, N-95 masks & testing supplies.”

Wheeler sent a letter to Trump on Friday, declining the president’s offer to sent federal officers to Portland to help quell the riots.

“Dear President Trump. Yet again, you said you offered to aid Portland by sending in federal law enforcement to our city,” Wheeler’s letter read. “On behalf of the City of Portland: No thanks. We don’t need your politics of division and demagoguery.”

“When you sent the Feds to Portland last month, you made the situation far worse,” Wheeler said. “Your offer to repeat that disaster is a cynical attempt to stoke fear and distract us from the real work of our city. In Portland, we are focused on coming together as a community to solve the serious challenges we face due to systemic racism, a global pandemic and an economic recession. Stay away, please.”

Trump responded, “If the incompetent Mayor of Portland, Ted Wheeler, doesn’t get control of his city and stop the Anarchists, Agitators, Rioters and Looters, causing great danger to innocent people, we will go in and take care of matters the way they should have been taken care of 100 days ago!”

As of Aug. 27, Portland Police have made 217 arrests at protests in the month of August, nearly three times the 77 arrests they made in all of July, according to the Portland Police Bureau. “About half of those occurred in the last week, when police declared riots five out of seven nights,” The Oregonian reported on Thursday.

Friday marked the 93rd straight day of protests in Portland. A riot was declared by Portland Police after vandals set fire to the police union building.

Also on Friday night, Black Lives Matter protesters chained themselves together as a demonstration in Wheeler’s apartment building lobby.

The 74 defendants federally charged by the DOJ include:

  • Edward Carubis, 24, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 1, 2020;
  • Rowan Olsen, 19, is charged (photos available) with creating a hazard on federal property, disorderly conduct, and failing to obey a lawful order on July 2, 2020;
  • Shant Singh Ahuja, 28, of Oceanside, California, is charged with destruction of federal property on July 4, 2020;
  • Gretchen Blank, 29, of Seattle, Washington, is charged (photos available) with assaulting a federal officer on July 5, 2020;
  • Andrew Faulkner, 24, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 5, 2020;
  • Christopher Fellini, 31, is charged (photos available) with assaulting a federal officer on July 5, 2020;
  • Theodore Matthee-O’Brien, 21, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 5, 2020;
  • Cody Porter, 28, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 5, 2020;
  • Taimane Teo, 24, of Eugene, Oregon, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 5, 2020;
  • Benjamin Wood-Pavich, 21, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 5, 2020;
  • Jacob Gaines, 23, a Texas resident, is charged (photos available) with assaulting a federal officer on July 11, 2020;
  • Lillith Grin, 22, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 12, 2020;
  • Benjamin Bolen, 36, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 13, 2020;
  • Kevin Weier, 36, is charged with attempted arson on July 13, 2020;
  • Wyatt Ash-Milby, 18, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 21, 2020;
  • Jerusalem Callahan, 24, is charged with damaging government property on July 21, 2020;
  • Zachary Duffly, 45, is charged with creating a disturbance on July 21, 2020;
  • Caleb Ehlers, 23, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 21, 2020;
  • Paul Furst, 22, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 21, 2020;
  • Jennifer Kristiansen, 38, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 21, 2020;
  • Ella Miller, 26, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 21, 2020;
  • Marie Sager, 27, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 21, 2020;
  • Giovanni Bondurant, 19, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 22, 2020;
  • Bailey Dreibelbis, 22, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 21, 2020;
  • Gabriel Huston, 22, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 22, 2020;
  • Joseph Lagalo, 37, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 22, 2020;
  • Taylor Lemons, 32, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 22, 2020;
  • Joseph Ybarra, 21, is charged with arson on July 22, 2020;
  • David Hazan, 24, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 23, 2020;
  • Nicholas Kloiber, 26, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 23, 2020;
  • Cameron Knutson, 28, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 23, 2020;
  • Carly Ballard, 34, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 24, 2020;
  • David Bouchard, 36, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 24, 2020;
  • Dakota Eastman, 30, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 24, 2020;
  • Josslynn Kreutz, 28, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 24, 2020;
  • Ezra Meyers, 18, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 24, 2020;
  • Mark Rolycanov, 28, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 24, 2020;
  • Pablo Avvocato, 26, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 25, 2020;
  • Douglas Dean, 34, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 25, 2020;
  • Rebecca Mota Gonzales, 37, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 25, 2020;
  • Thomas Johnson, 33, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 25, 2020;
  • Richard Lindstedt, 33, is charged with violating national defense airspace on July 25, 2020;
  • Nathan Onderdonk-Snow, 21, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 25, 2020;
  • Stephen O’Donnell, 65, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 25, 2020;
  • Joshua Webb, 22, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 25, 2020;
  • Jeffree Cary, 30, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 26, 2020;
  • John Tyler Gabriel, 22, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 26, 2020;
  • Noelle Mandolfo, 30, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 26, 2020;
  • Patrick Stafford, 35, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 26, 2020;
  • Travis Williams, 27, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 26, 2020;
  • Caleb Wills, 29, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 26, 2020;
  • Brodie Storey, 28, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 27, 2020;
  • Edward Schinzing, 32, is charged (photos available) with arson on July 28, 2020;
  • James Hickerson, 54, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order on July 28, 2020;
  • Ian Wolf, 26, is charged with failing to obey a lawful order and creating a hazard on federal property on July 28, 2020;
  • Sabastian Dubar, 23, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 29, 2020;
  • Jordan Johnson, 32, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 29, 2020;
  • Evan Kriechbaum, 31, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 29, 2020;
  • Christine Margaux, 28, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on July 29, 2020;
  • Gabriel Agard-Berryhill, 18, is charged (video available) with arson on July 30, 2020;
  • Isaiah Maza, 18, is charged (photos available) with assaulting a federal officer on July 31, 2020;
  • Dakotah Horton, 24, is charged (photos available) with assaulting a federal officer on August 17, 2020; and
  • Dakota Means, 20, is charged with assaulting a federal officer on August 24, 2020.
Share
Categories
Coronavirus fraud Covid fraud Crime Department of Justice DOJ Intelwars Ppp loans

Department of Justice: DC man stole $2.5 million from COVID-19 relief fund and Catholic Church to buy yacht and $1 million row house

A Washington, D.C., man was charged with fraud for allegedly stealing $2.5 million from the federal COVID-19 relief fund and from the Catholic Church, then using that money for extravagant purchases, including a house, sports car, and yacht.

Kenneth Gaughan, 41, was arrested Tuesday and charged with one count of bank fraud, one count of the theft of government funds, one count of wire fraud, and one count of money laundering. Gaughan allegedly obtained fraudulent money meant to go to businesses struggling to stay afloat during the coronavirus pandemic. According to the Department of Justice, he stole over $2.1 million in Paycheck Protection Program loans and Economic Injury Disaster Loans.

Gaughan also allegedly operated an embezzlement scheme to steal more than $472,000 in funds from the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. He was previously employed as the assistant superintendent, responsible for being the point-of-contact for contractors to provide different services to about 95 Catholic schools overseen by the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington.

From June 2010 through April 2018, Gaughan reportedly faked invoices for anti-bullying and crisis intervention programs and then billed the archdiocese from three companies he owned.

Gaughan is accused of using the stolen funds to buy a 2020 Cruisers Yachts 338 CX 33-foot watercraft worth $300,000, a $46,000 2020 Kia Stinger sports sedan, and a $1.13 million row house in northeast Washington, D.C.

According to the DOJ, he applied for PPP loans through the U.S. Small Business Administration under companies who “register emotional support animals” by allegedly forging paperwork and bank records.

The government seized the yacht, the luxury automobile, Gaughan’s investment account, and Gaughan’s bank accounts. The federal government is also filing a civil forfeiture complaint for the seizure of his row house.

“During this time, many businesses are feeling the effects of the pandemic. To help businesses make it through, the government offered loans to provide economic relief to small businesses and non-profit organizations that are currently experiencing a temporary loss of revenue and enable them to keep their workers on the payroll. Unfortunately, there are greedy individuals who choose to abuse these programs in order to enrich their lifestyle,” Kelly Jackson, IRS special agent in charge of the D.C. field office, said in a Department of Justice news release. “This conduct will be investigated to ensure crooks are held responsible for stealing this money away from those who were in need.”

“Mr. Gaughan was so emboldened by deceiving a church for eight years he then, allegedly, turned his deception to the government, stealing funds that were meant to be a lifeline for struggling businesses during an unprecedented economic downturn, and greedily using them to satisfy his own materialistic desires,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Jennifer Boone.

“We will not tolerate the exploitation of this national emergency for personal gain,” said acting U.S. Attorney Michael R. Sherwin. “This Office will not allow fraudsters to steal taxpayer money intended to help small businesses that are currently struggling as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Last month, a California man was arrested for reportedly stealing $9 million in COVID-19 relief funds. Andrew Marnell, a Los Angeles resident, was accused of submitting several fraudulent loan applications. He allegedly spent the money on extravagant gambling sprees in Las Vegas and risky stock market investments.

In late May, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Security and Exchange Committee, and the U.S Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced fraud charges against former Hollywood executive producer William Sadleir. He was accused of stealing $1.7 million in coronavirus relief loans and embezzling $25 million from investors.

Sadleir, 66, was said to have used the PPP loans to pay off his personal credit cards, $40,000 in car payments, other personal expenses, and to help purchase a $14 million mansion in Beverly Hills.

Share
Categories
DOJ Gabriel agard-berryhill Intelwars Karla fox portland Portland riots

Feds arrest suspect in bombing of federal building, Trump-loving grandmother outed him to police

The Justice Department announced Friday that they have arrested 18-year-old Gabriel Agard-Berryhill for allegedly throwing a “large explosive device” at a federal courthouse during violent protests in Portland this week.

From the DOJ:

According to court documents, at approximately 11:50pm on July 28, 2020, security cameras at the Hatfield Federal Courthouse captured footage of a large incendiary object enter the building’s portico area and land near plywood sheeting affixed to the building’s façade. A few seconds later, the object exploded, igniting a fire near the building’s main entrance. Federal law enforcement personnel collected various items near the site of the explosion and sent them to a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) laboratory for further analysis.

ATF investigators reviewed social media posts from the night of the explosion and located videos of the incendiary object being thrown. The individual depicted throwing the object, later identified to be Agard-Berryhill, was a young, Caucasian male wearing a green colored vest, camouflage pants, and a mask. Investigators observed the person in other protest-related videos posted online wearing the same vest and attempting to hold a shield in front of a naked woman.

According to the New York Post, federal agents were able to quickly identify Agard-Berryhill because his grandmother outed him to law enforcement.

Karla Fox, whom the Post described as a “Trump-loving, 69-year-old woman,” recognized her grandson in videos of the explosion because he was wearing a vest that she had gifted him.

“I bought the vest for him after he found one online after getting hit with rubber bullets the night before at the protest,” Fox told the Post.

Fox had even gone so far as to write a positive review on the clothing website where she purchased the vest, writing, “I got this for my grandson who’s a protester downtown, he uses it every night and says it does the job.”

According to the Post, Fox later wrote about her grandson on Twitter under the username, “TRUMPSGIRL2020.”

“This is my only grandson, I love him to death, and didn’t know he was going to do such a bad thing, I had been posting several things about the antifa and BLM, he knows I am against those riots bigtime…he chose his poison,” Fox wrote.

Fox told the Post that she was unaware that her online postings helped authorities identify her grandson as the alleged perpetrator of the explosion.

What did the government say?

“No legitimate protest message is advanced by throwing a large explosive device against a government building. Mr. Agard-Berryhill’s actions could have gravely injured law enforcement officers positioned near the courthouse, other protesters standing nearby, or himself,” U.S. Attorney Billy Williams said.

Agard-Berryhill is officially being charged with arson, which the DOJ noted has a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison.

Share
Categories
Department of Justice DOJ Intelwars Portland rioters Portland riots Riots

Feds ID and nab shirtless Portland Justice Center arson suspect thanks to the giant tattoo on his back … of his last name

If you’re going to break into your city’s police headquarters and commit arson while sporting a tattoo of your last name in giant letters on your back, a word of advice: Wear a shirt.

Suspected arsonist Edward Schinzing, 32, did not follow that advice when he allegedly attempted to set fire to the Portland Justice Center, which is near the center of the ongoing protests and riots in downtown Portland, Oregon.

And now he’s facing federal arson charges.

What happened?

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that authorities had charged Schinzing with “using fire to maliciously damage or destroy the Justice Center in downtown Portland.”

The charges stem from a late May incident at the Justice Center, which houses the Portland Police headquarters and the Multnomah County Detention Center.

According to the DOJ statement, Schinzing was among a group of protesters who broke into the Justice Center just before 11 p.m. on May 29. Protesters smashed several of the building’s windows and entered secured offices.

At least three civilian county employees who were working in the Corrections Records Office at the time ran for safety when the windows were broken and suspects raided the building, the DOJ noted.

The department said about 30 rioters entered the Justice Center through the broken windows, spray-painted parts of the office, destroyed office equipment and computers, and started fires.

Schinzing, the Justice Department said, was ID’d by comparing his images on surveillance video with a previous jail booking photo and a “distinctive tattoo of his last name across his upper back.”

The suspect allegedly spread a fire by lighting papers in the front of the office and moving them to a drawer in a second cubicle.

Thankfully for the workers — plus the 289 inmates housed in the detention center — the building’s fire sprinkler system was able to extinguish the fires, according to the statement.


U.S. Department of Justice/U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Oregon

According to the Oregonian, Schinzing is facing federal charges for his alleged crimes at a county building because the property belonging to the city of Portland and Multnomah County receives millions of dollars in federal assistance through the DOJ.

Schinzing, who was on probation for domestic violence assault, the newspaper said, is currently being held in the jail at the Justice Center that he is accused of trying to torch.

He also has seven prior misdemeanor and two felony convictions, the Oregonian reported.

Here’s video of the “peaceful” Portland protesters busting the windows of the Justice Center on May 29.

Content warning: Rough language


Portland protesters break windows at the Justice Center downtown

youtu.be

Share
Categories
appeals court Dc circuit DOJ Emmet sullivan Intelwars Michael Flynn

Michael Flynn wins: Federal appeals court rules district judge must drop charges against him

A federal court on Wednesday ordered U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan to immediately dismiss the criminal charges against Michael Flynn.

The ruling was a significant victory for the Justice Department, which took the unusual move last month to dismiss charges against Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to FBI investigators.

Sullivan, however, refused to grant the Justice Department’s request, and instead sought to determine whether the request was politically motivated. Sullivan even took the highly unusual step of inviting outside counsel — former U.S. District Judge John Gleeson — to argue against the Justice Department.

Flynn’s legal team responded by asking the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to intervene, requesting the court force Sullivan to comply with the Justice Department’s request.

The appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling, sided with Flynn on Wednesday.

The court ruled that allowing Sullivan to examine the motive behind the Justice Department’s request would interfere with the constitutional separation of powers.

“In this case, the district court’s actions will result in specific harms to the exercise of the Executive Branch’s exclusive prosecutorial power,” Judge Neomi Rao wrote in the majority opinion. “The contemplated proceedings would likely require the Executive to reveal the internal deliberative process behind its exercise of prosecutorial discretion, interfering with the Article II charging authority.”

“If evidence comes to light calling into question the integrity or purpose of an underlying criminal investigation, the Executive Branch must have the authority to decide that further prosecution is not in the interest of justice,” Rao explained.

Judge Robert Wilkins dissented, saying his own court overstepped its boundaries.

“It is a great irony that, in finding the District Court to have exceeded its jurisdiction, this Court so grievously oversteps its own,” Wilkins wrote. “This appears to be the first time that we have issued a writ of mandamus to compel a district court to rule in a particular manner on a motion without first giving the lower court a reasonable opportunity to issue its own ruling.”

President Donald Trump celebrated the ruling.

“Great! Appeals Court Upholds Justice Departments Request To Drop Criminal Case Against General Michael Flynn!” he wrote on Twitter.

Share
Categories
DOJ Intelwars John durham Russia investigation William Barr

Report: John Durham’s investigation now going ‘full-throttle,’ rapidly expanding

United States Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation is reportedly expanding and now going “full-throttle.”

Last May, Attorney General William Barr appointed Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, to oversee a probe into the Russia investigation and whether the Justice Department and FBI lawfully conducted its investigation, which included an extensive inquiry into the Trump campaign and its associates.

Now, less than one week after the Justice Department dropped its charges against Michael Flynn, Fox News reported that Durham’s investigation is expanding.

According to the report, two additional U.S. attorneys are assisting Durham. Jeff Jensen, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, was originally tasked with overseeing a review of the Flynn case; he has reportedly stayed on to help Durham. Sources told Fox News that interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea is also assisting Durham’s investigation.

“They farmed the investigation out because it is too much for Durham and he didn’t want to be distracted,” one source said. “He’s going full throttle, and they’re looking at everything.”

Additionally, sources told Fox News that Durham is examining a “pattern of conduct,” which includes the FBI’s erroneous FISA applications to obtain surveillance warrants against Carter Page.

Durham reportedly talks to Barr about the investigation “every day,” another source told Fox News. The investigation should conclude by late summer, CNN reported.

It is not yet clear what conclusions will arise from Durham’s review. However, Barr suggested last month that a day of reckoning may be on the horizon.

“My own view is that the evidence shows that we’re not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness, there was something far more troubling here; and we’re going to get to the bottom of it,” Barr said last month when asked about the investigation.

“And if people broke the law, and we can establish that with the evidence, they will be prosecuted,” he declared.

Share
Categories
Barack Obama DOJ FBI Intelwars jonathan turley Michael Flynn

Liberal law professor punches back at Obama for claiming Flynn dismissal puts ‘the rule of law at risk’

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley hit back at former President Barack Obama on Saturday over his assertion that the “rule of law is at risk” after the Department of Justice dropped all charges against Michael Flynn.

Obama said on Friday, Yahoo News reported:

The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed — about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn.

And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.

According to Turley, a self-avowed liberal, Obama’s comments reveal how personally invested he was in the Flynn case.

“It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury,” Turley began.

“Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional,” he continued. “Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort.”

But, according to Turley, there is precedent for the Justice Department’s sudden decision — and Obama should look no further than his own attorney general, Eric Holder.

“Finally, there is precedent,” Turley wrote. “There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals.”

“The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case,” Turley explained. “That was requested by President Obama’s own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan. How is that for precedent?”

“While people of good faith can certainly disagree on the wisdom or basis for the Flynn motion, it is simply untrue if President Obama is claiming that there is no precedent or legal authority for the motion,” Turley wrote on his website.

Share
Categories
Crossfire razor Department of Justice DOJ FBI Intelwars Michael Flynn

Justice Department drops criminal case against Michael Flynn

The U.S. Justice Department is dropping its criminal case against Michael Flynn, according to the Associated Press. This comes a week after the public release of documents that were unsealed in the case, which raised questioned as to the motivation of the investigation into President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser.

The DOJ concluded that Flynn’s interview by the FBI was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and that the interview on Jan. 24, 2017, was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”

The 2017 interview days after Trump’s inauguration led to Flynn pleading guilty of lying to the FBI about contact with the then-Russian ambassador before Trump took office. The retired Army lieutenant general pleaded guilty to one count of lying to federal agents in December 2017.

In court documents filed Thursday, the Justice Department said it was dropping the case “after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information.”

“Through the course of my review of General Flynn’s case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case,” U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, who was reviewing the Flynn case, said in a statement. “I briefed Attorney General [William] Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed.”

Flynn had been attempting to withdraw his guilty plea since January, arguing that he is a victim of misconduct by prosecutors.

Unsealed documents showed that the FBI had closed its criminal counterintelligence investigation into Flynn, but top bureau official Peter Strzok ordered it to be reopened. The FBI was going to close the case against Flynn because there was an “absence of any derogatory information.”

The investigation into Flynn, codenamed “Crossfire Razor,” was set to conclude Jan. 4, 2017, but Strzok had it reopened.

“Hey, if you haven’t closed RAZOR, don’t do so yet,” Strzok wrote in a text message to the investigating agent on Jan. 4, 2017. “Pls keep it open for now.”

Share