http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090225/full/news.2009.120.html
Anthrax investigation still yielding findings
Chemical composition of spores doesn't match suspect flask.
Roberta Kwok
The deadly bacterial spores mailed to victims in the US anthrax attacks, scientists say, share a chemical 'fingerprint' that is not found in bacteria from the flask linked to Bruce Ivins, the biodefence researcher implicated in the crime.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) alleges that Ivins, who committed suicide last July, was the person responsible for mailing letters laden with Bacillus anthracis to news media and congressional offices in 2001, killing five people and sickening 17. The FBI used genetic analyses to trace the mailed spores back to a flask called RMR-1029, which Ivins could access in his laboratory at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Fort Detrick, Maryland.
Investigators used genetic analyses to track down the particular strain of Bacillus anthracis used in the attacks.
At a biodefence meeting on 24 February, Joseph Michael, a materials scientist at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, presented analyses of three letters sent to the New York Post and to the offices of Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. Spores from two of those show a distinct chemical signature that includes silicon, oxygen, iron, and tin; the third letter had silicon, oxygen, iron and possibly also tin, says Michael.
Bacteria from Ivins' RMR-1029 flask did not contain any of those four elements.
Two cultures of the same anthrax strain grown using similar processes — one from Ivins' lab, the other from a US Army facility in Utah — showed the silicon-oxygen signature but did not contain tin or iron. Michael presented the analyses at the American Society for Microbiology's Biodefense and Emerging Diseases Research Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland.
The chemical mismatch doesn't necessarily mean that deadly spores used in the attacks did not originate from Ivins' RMR-1029 flask, says Jason Bannan, a microbiologist and forensic examiner at the FBI's Chemical Biological Sciences Unit in Quantico, Virginia. The RMR-1029 culture was created in 1997, and the mailed spores could have been taken out of that flask and grown under different conditions, resulting in varying chemical contents. "It doesn't surprise me that it would be different," he says.
The data suggest that spores for the three letters were grown using the same process, says Michael. It is not clear how tin and iron made their way into the culture, he says. Bannan suggests that the growth medium may have contained iron and tin may have come from a water source.
Hard to tell apart
The meeting offered scientists who collaborated with the FBI during the investigation an opportunity to share detailed data. The analyses will eventually be published in peer-reviewed journals, the FBI has said.
Jacques Ravel, a genomics scientist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, described his team's efforts to find genetic differences between various cultures of the Ames strain, the B. anthracis strain identified in the anthrax letters. At first, the team was surprised to find that the DNA sequences of a reference Ames strain and Ames samples from the investigation, such as bacteria isolated from the spinal fluid of the first victim, were exactly the same. "It was kind of a shock," says Ravel.
For help, the researchers turned to variants found by a team at USAMRIID. Patricia Worsham and her colleagues had noticed differences in shape, colour and rate of spore formation even within a single anthrax culture. Ravel's team identified the genetic mutations associated with four variants and developed an assay for one of them, called Morph E. Researchers at Commonwealth Biotechnologies in Richmond, Virginia, and the Midwest Research Institute's Florida Division in Palm Bay created assays for three other variants.
The FBI then used that arsenal of tests to pin down the origins of the anthrax letters, matching the mix of genetic variants in the mailed spores to Ivins' RMR-1029 flask. "It has the genetic signatures that identify it as the most likely source of the growth," says Bannan.
Ravel also sequenced the genome of a Bacillus subtilis strain that was found in one of the letters. That sample did not match a B. subtilis strain found in Ivins' lab, says Bannan, but the bacterial contamination still could have come from somewhere else in Ivins' institution
The FBI has asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to convene an independent panel of experts to review the anthrax investigation data. The academy is still in the process of drawing up a contract with the FBI that lays out an agreement to perform the study, says NAS spokeswoman Christine Stencel.
Thomas DeGonia, Ivins' lawyer at Venable LLP in Rockville, Maryland, maintains Ivins' innocence.
Friday, February 27, 2009
OBAMA has not fired MUELLER? More proof that FBI OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE and MURDERED IVINS as the patsy who commits suicide
whistleblower tells all on DRUG MONEY LAUNDERING: HOW COME THE POLICE STATE DOES NOT STOP COKE AND HEROIN WITH GOP links?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HUD403A.html
An Insider Spills the Beans on Offshore Banking Centers
Standard Schaefer interviews Michael Hudson
Counterpunch, 25 March 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 28 March 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HUD403A.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The oil industry created the practice of countries (SHIPS?) flying "flags of convenience" as a means of avoiding income taxes nearly a century ago. Since the 1960s the U.S. Government itself has encouraged American banks to set up branches in Caribbean hot-money centers and more distant islands as a means of attracting foreign money into the dollar. The initial aim was to help finance the Vietnam War by turning America into a new Switzerland for the world's hot money.
This policy succeeded in turning the United States into a flight-capital center for third-world dictators, Mexican presidents and Russian oligarchs. The former Soviet Union now finances a substantial portion of the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit with the flight capital that neoliberal "reformers" facilitated by backing the kleptocrats. The result has grown into a full-blown system enabling multinational corporations to evade taxes everywhere, including the United States itself. It enables domestic investors to globalize their operations by setting up offshore affiliates Enron-style in the Cayman Islands, Dutch West Indies or some small and newly notorious Pacific Island of their choice.
The permissive regulatory system relating to these offshore beachheads of tax avoidance has evolved to a point that enables U.S. and European investors to shed taxes simply by hiring a lawyer to set up a boiler-place office and finding an accounting firm willing to take its records at face value--which is good enough for the tax authorities to accept in these days of downsized fiscal operations. The resulting plunge in the ratio of corporate tax obligations to national income has been a major factor in America's soaring federal budget deficit. Businesses--and especially the financial sector--establish dummy companies and adjust their transfer pricing (e.g. on sales of raw materials to refineries, and of refined or semi-manufactured products to their final distributors in the industrial nations) so as to take all their profits in these tax-free enclaves.
Flight capital would not leave countries without having somewhere safe to go. A rising number of tax-avoidance islands have made use of the fact that they are small enough to adopt whatever tax code they wish. Lawyers acting on behalf of financial and business lobbies in North America and Europe have drawn up laws to turn these banking centers into what Prof. Hudson calls anti-states.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SS: In earlier interviews you described how the economy has been "financialized" in ways that free companies from taxation. What role do offshore tax havens play in this?
MH: Companies set up trading companies in tax-avoidance islands and declare whatever income or capital gains they earn on real estate, stocks or other investments to be made by these shells. This has led to the quip that taxes have become purely voluntary for modern businesses.
SS: How does this affect the domestic U.S. economy?
MH: Un-taxing business income--and financial income in particular--leaves individual taxpayers to bear the fiscal burden through wage withholding for Social Security, Medicare and pension-fund contributions. Consumers also bear a rising burden through the sales tax and other local taxes.
SS: Do the statistics confirm this?
MH: Offshore tax havens enable multinational companies to give an impression that they do not earn any income on business done in countries where taxes are levied at European and North American rates. The reality is that U.S. companies make a lot more money than they report. However, offshore banking centers free them from having to pay taxes on this income, or on capital gains. That's why we're running such high budget deficits today.
SS: I understand you have had a forty-year experience with these offshore banking centers and tax-free enclaves.
MH: I was taught the ropes in the course of my work as a balance-of-payments economist, and later as a mutual-fund manager. My first clue to how these enclaves were set up came when I worked for the Chase Manhattan Bank in 1965-66 and was assigned the task of writing a report on the oil industry's impact on the U.S balance of payments. After reading the usual books about how the cartel operated worldwide, I still had difficulty making my way through the oil industry's income-and-expense statements and the statistics published by the Department of Commerce.
My main problem was to find just where oil companies made their profits. Was it at the production end where crude oil was drilled out of the ground, at the processing stage where the oil was refined, or at the distribution end where it was sold to its end-users to heat buildings, run cars, fly airplanes and make into petrochemicals and plastics?
David Rockefeller arranged for me to meet one afternoon with Jack Bennett, the treasurer of Standard Oil of New Jersey (the old Esso before it changed its name to Exxon). "The profits are made right here in the Treasurer's office," he explained, "wherever I decide." He showed me the broad leeway a vertically organized global conglomerate enjoyed in being able to assign "transfer prices" do as to report the overall profit at whatever point taxes were lowest on oil's statistically labyrinthine journey from wellhead to gas station.
Taxes were lowest (in fact, non-existent) in Panama and Liberia, where the oil industry's tankers duly registered their flags of convenience. Standard Oil priced its crude oil low to these shipping affiliates, and sold it at a high, nearly retail price to refineries and marketing outlets in the industrial oil-consuming nations.
SS: How can someone use the statistics to trace what is happening?
MH: It is not easy to find transactions with these flag-of-convenience countries in the U.S. balance-of-payments statistics. Instead of being listed as bona fide countries in Africa or Latin America, they appear under a rather obscure column heading called "international." Cursory viewers tend to overlook it, as it does not indicate a specific country or region. Some people may imagine that it even refers to venerable international organizations such as the United Nations, IMF or World Bank. But what "international" means is, quite simply, "international shipping" registered under flags of convenience. Quite properly, it doesn't really belong to a foreign nation's economy at all, because it is a legal fiction that U.S. companies simply make use of to produce tax filings on an unrealistic "as if" basis.
SS: You're saying that the statistics are translated into a language of unreality.
MH: A carefully structured unreality--and one that has real-world consequences, to be sure. The essence of this game is that Esso and other oil majors were able to "game" the world's tax systems by selling their crude oil at so low a price to their tanker companies as to leave little income for Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or other oil-producing countries. This discouraged them from taking control of their mineral wealth, especially as they had no tanker fleets to move this oil. The corporate shipping affiliates turned around and sold their oil to their downstream refineries. These generally were located safely offshore in different political jurisdictions (e.g., Trinidad for Venezuelan oil). The oil was transferred at so high a price that despite the heavy capital investment in these facilities, the refiners and distributors reported losses year after year, decade after decade.
SS: How could the tax authorities in Europe and America not catch on to what was happening?
MH: That's where the political lobbying power of major vested interests came into play. Their ability to avoid having to declare earnings on which taxes would be due reflected the passivity of tax collectors in Europe and North America where most downstream facilities were located. One might think that such governments would have imputed a minimum tax, on the principle that any investment must expect to earn at least a normal rate of return; otherwise it would not be made or kept in place. Turning a blind eye to this logic, governments accepted the profit-and-loss statements as company accountants submitted them. They permitted the profits from oil drilling, refining and marketing to disappear down the statistical black hole of international shipping.
Mining companies followed a similar accounting practice with their shipping fleets and refineries. These oil and mineral companies were among the largest multinationals.
SS: You are saying that profits fell statistically, but not really. What does this mean for the theory that market prices allocate resources efficiently by reflecting supply costs and demand?
MH: The development of tax shelters in flag-of-convenience countries to record corporate profits hardly can be viewed as a merely marginal phenomenon. For nearly a century it has played a central role in the U.S. and European economies. But the prices are fictitious rather than a result of being based on actual costs or on supply and demand. Only the immense political power of these extractive sectors could have induced their governments to remain so passive in the face of the fiscal drain they entail--a favorable tax treatment denied to other taxpayers.
Gradually, however, other sectors learned to emulate the strategy of avoiding taxes by using offshore banking centers.
SS: Apart from transfer pricing, were other accounting gimmicks used?
MH: Parent companies consolidated their oil fields in the Near East, Africa and South America into their domestic U.S. balance sheets by organizing them not as corporately distinct foreign affiliates but as "branches." This technicality allowed them to take the full U.S. depletion tax credit against their income. Depleting the resources of other countries was treated as if they were part of the American economy--except that the profits were taken in Liberia and Panama.
SS: Did you have any conflicts working for Chase and the oil companies to produce this report?
MH: I was given free rein. I was told to come up with the best statistics possible. They made it clear that if the answers were not what they and the oil industry expected, they would not publish my report, but at least they wanted to know what the statistical situation was. I accepted the assignment on these terms.
How the Russian and U.S. Governments nurtured offshore capital-flight dollar centers
SS: How did these flag-of-convenience tax havens evolve into offshore financial centers independent of corporate shipping operations?
MH: The common denominator is tax avoidance, but the proliferation of offshore banking centers has taken on a life of its own, based on flight capital and hot money.
SS: Did this also occur as a result of corporate tax maneuvering?
MH: That was not the main motivation. Switzerland and Liechtenstein would have sufficed for the level of flight capital and criminal savings that characterized the 1950s. In order for modern-type hot-money havens to emerge, an institutional set-up had to be created to hold dollars or other hard currencies outside their countries of origin--somewhere that would provide the same degree of "privacy," "confidentiality" and hence immunity from the authorities that Switzerland provided with its notorious bank secrecy laws.
The oil and mineral companies did not break the laws or do anything illegal, and hence did not need this kind of privacy. They simply wrote and amended the tax laws to insert loopholes in their own favor. The actual money was kept in their home offices. But offshore banking centers aimed at a different source of deposits--those which needed to be kept outside the reach of U.S. or European authorities.
SS: So how did the offshore vehicles for dollar deposits develop?
MH: Actually, the great catalysts were the Soviet and U.S. Governments themselves. The story starts with the creation of the Eurodollar market during the Cold War years.
In the late 1950s the Soviet Union had a problem. It needed bank accounts denominated in U.S. dollars to defray its various spending programs in the West. But as the Cold War heated up, it feared that the U.S. Government might confiscate its U.S. bank accounts (much as Chase Manhattan would do to Iran after the Shah was overthrown). Russia therefore approached a number of British banks and suggested that they establish accounts enabling Soviet agencies to keep their dollar receipts denominated in U.S. dollars (rather than converting them into sterling), and to use these dollar accounts to pay dollars various suppliers in the West (not to mention more nefarious agents). British banks agreed, and the Eurodollar market was born--a market for dollar deposits held outside of the United States.
SS: So a great finance-capital innovation was established by the Soviets themselves. Did they realize what they were doing? And by trying to evade U.S. control, did they end up helping or hurting U.S. global interests?
MH: Nobody grasped the implications at first. As so often happens, this financial innovation bred a train of unanticipated consequences. U.S. multinationals found it helpful to hold dollars offshore to facilitate their own transactions, especially as they began to buy European and other foreign firms and establish their own overseas branches.
U.S. banks set up branches in London and other money centers to serve these companies. When monetary policy was tightened during the Vietnam War years, these banks found the easiest supply of money to come from their foreign branches. Bank regulatory agencies had not foreseen this development, and had not imposed any requirement that head offices set aside reserves against the deposits that came from these foreign branches. So Eurodollar deposits became a great source of deposits for the large international U.S. banks to lend out when money was getting tight as a result of the Vietnam War's balance-of-payments drain.
How the U.S. Government urged Chase to set up branches in hot-money centers
SS: What was the most remarkable experience you had with these institutions?
MH: The Vietnam War was pushing the balance of payments into deficit, draining the gold supply that backed the currency. Gold had been America's lever of international financial power since World War I, and now it was flowing out to pay for the war in Southeast Asia.
The Johnson and Nixon administrations knew that if fighting the war meant less consumption at home, voters would oppose the war. So they pursued a guns-and-butter policy, promoting heavy domestic consumption and deficit spending, leaving little to sell abroad. The United States was not willing to permit key economic sectors to be sold to foreigners to balance its international payments, although this is what it directed other debtor countries to do after 1980.
U.S. officials sought to attract foreign exchange in any way they could, but their options were limited. One great possibility remained: attract foreign flight capital. This could be done without raising interest rates at home, but providing a safe haven for foreign hot money. Therefore, what U.S. geopolitical strategists were willing to accept were foreign bank deposits, regardless of where they came from.
In balance-of-payments terms, foreign money being converted into dollars and kept in foreign branches of U.S. banks would do just as well as money in U.S. banks, as long as these deposits were held in dollars rather than in foreign currency.
SS: Was this an explicit policy?
MH: Pretty explicit. This was at a time when so much hot money was going to Switzerland that its franc was becoming the world's hardest currency. American financial strategists sought a policy to support the dollar in much the same way. The State Dept. and Treasury approached the nation's leading international banks with a proposal to do something that they would have feared to do without official inducement. They were to establish and expand their own branches in the world's major capital-flight centers--and perhaps to help establish some new ones. Not only would this attract foreign flight money, it would keep at home the substantial sums were being sent abroad by U.S. tax evaders.
In 1996 a former State Dept. employee who had become a Chase officer asked for my opinion of a memorandum outlining the common interest between U.S. economic diplomacy and the nation's international banks with regard to establishing offshore branches aimed at attracting some of the world's hot money away from Switzerland and other flight-capital centers.
The US is probably the second major flight center in the world, but with little probability of rivaling Switzerland for the foreseeable future. Like Switzerland, flight money probably flows to the US from every country in the world. It is handled almost exclusively by the major New York and Miami brokers, lawyers, and leading commercial banks. Officers of CMB International Department and Trust Department confirm that CMB Home Office itself handles a reasonable amount of foreign flight money. However this is insignificant relative to the total potentially available.
There is general consensus among CMB officers and both US and European experts in the field that US-based and US-controlled entities are badly penalized in competing for flight money with the Swiss or other foreign flight-money centers over the long run. This is because of the following interrelated factors:
(a) The demonstrated ability of the US Treasury, Justice Department, CIA, and FBI to subpoena client records, attach client accounts, and force testimony from US officers of US-controlled entities, with proper US court back-up.
(b) The restrictive US investment and brokerage regulations and policies, which limit the flexibility and secrecy of investment activity.
(c) The US estate tax and US withholding tax on foreign investments.
(d) The role of the US as a major contestant in the Cold War, and resulting likelihood that investments through a US entity may be exposed to any hostility or freeze of assets occurring as a result of the Cold War.
(e) The generally held (and partly unwarranted) view of many sophisticated foreigners that US investment managers are naïve and inexperienced in manipulation of foreign funds, especially in foreign markets.
Despite the above limitations, the US has brought appeal to flight money holders in other respects. These include: The largest and most active securities markets in the world, assuring both liquidity and diversification. Ease of transfer and mechanical handling of investments, partly through US banks' worldwide network. The world's leading reserve currency, the US dollar. In recent years, the unmatched financial stability and one of the highest levels of economic growth of any major industrial nation. Finally, negligible probability of revolution or confiscation, and low probability of inconvertibility.
The memo cited Beirut, Panama, Switzerland and other centers from which the U.S. Government invited Chase to attract international flight capital by placing its services at the disposal of the existing and prospective patrons of dictators, drug dealers, criminals and even Cold War adversaries.
Chase and other major U.S. money-center banks responded by setting up a network of offshore centers to turn America into a high-level Switzerland.
SS: Did this actually occur, and did the government go along with it?
MH: The government and banks were well aware of the fact that crooks are the most liquid people in the world, for the simple reason that they fear to hold property in plain sight of the authorities--except in cases where their actual ownership can be laundered through a maze of dummy companies and name-plates on legal folders in the offices of the offshore lawyers who make their livelihood by managing such financial stratagems. The major American accounting firms, law firms and investment advisors soon got into the business of advising corporations and wealthy clients how to set up offshore bank accounts in the name of paper companies.
SS: This would seem to be a bombshell. Have you ever published this?
MH: I showed it to the Canadian economics professor and journalist Tom Naylor, who reproduced it in 1987 in his book Hot Money, pp. 33-34. The book has been translated into many languages and reprinted numerous times. It is about to be reprinted again this year by McGill-Queens University Press up in Canada, and in fact I'm writing an introduction to the newest edition. But there hasn't really been much discussion, because the topic of hot money remains outside the concerns of most academic economists.
SS: Was there any debate over whether this was the right thing to do?
MH: Yes, a series of Congressional hearings were held, and many excellent reports were included. But right-or-wrong morality didn't play much of a role. One of the main policy issues was simply whether the government should impose a 15 percent withholding tax on foreign holdings of Treasury securities, on the ground that this would probably be the only tax revenue it would recover. Government spokesmen (WHO, WHAT DEPARTMENTS?) convinced Congress not to impose the tax, on the ground that this would discourage foreign hot money--and also U.S. hot money, for that matter--from holding Treasury bonds. The United States needed every market it could create for its bonds at this time, to stem the gold outflow. So the foreign withholding tax was abolished.
SS: In other words, the Treasury permitted domestic U.S. tax avoidance to occur in order to get a balance-of-payments inflow into the dollar, and to hold down domestic interest rates.
MH: Yes. The I.R.S. already had permitted tax avoidance to occur under pressure from the large multinationals such as the oil and mining companies. Vertical integration enabled them to administer transfer pricing in a way that minimized their global tax liability. Refraining from taxing the interest paid on U.S. Treasury bonds favored U.S. hot money.
By the late 1960s the United States was well on the way to making America the leading haven for the world's flight capital. Citibank, Chase and others established or expanded operations for their "private banking" subsidiaries offering "confidentiality" to clients ranging from Mexico's leading politicians to Russia's kleptocrats in the 1990s.
SS: But the price was to give international law-breakers a better tax treatment than law-abiding and tax-paying citizens.
MH: Yes, and there's a reason for that. The striking thing is that the most liquid savers in today's society are criminals and tax evaders. They have a good reason to avoid real estate or other tangible property. It is too visible to prosecutors and tax authorities. That is why balance-of-payments statistics classify capital movements as "invisibles." Prestigious accounting firms and law partnerships busy themselves devising tax-avoidance ploys and creating a "veil of tiers" to provide a cloak of invisibility for the wealth built up by embezzlers, tax evaders, a few drug dealers, arms dealers and government intelligence agencies to use for their covert operations.
SS: So all this made finance capital more cosmopolitan and less subject to national regulation and government control.
MH: Yes, and by the late 1980s U.S. money managers were incorporating offshore mutual funds to tap global capital markets.
How hot-money centers turn capital flight into a market for government debts
SS: What was the effect of these tax havens and banking centers on the economies of other countries?
MH: Just as the U.S. authorities hoped, the world's hot money found it most convenient to go into dollarized offshore banking centers.
SS: Can you give an example of how this worked?
MH: In 1989 I was hired by the Boston money-management firm of Scudder, Stevens and Clark to spend a few months of my life organizing a sovereign-debt fund, that is, a fund investing in the bonds of third world governments. This was the world's first such fund, and it started what would become a torrent of issues in the 1990s. But at that early stage Scudder was unable to find American clients willing to put $75 million into a region where they had been burned badly in the aftermath of Mexico's 1982 insolvency.
On the other hand, that traumatic event had pushed borrowing rates up to nearly 45 percent annually for Argentine and Brazilian dollar-denominated government bonds, and about 25 percent for Mexico's dollar-denominated medium-term tesobonos. These rates enabled the fund to be more successful in finding foreign buyers. Incorporated in the Netherlands Antilles (Dutch West Indies) as the Sovereign High -Yield Investment Co. N.V., its shares were listed on the London Stock Exchange. The underwriter, Merrill Lynch, sold them mostly to well-connected Argentine families through its Buenos Aires office, with the balance taken mainly by Brazilian and other Latin American buyers.
Their money was invested in the high-yielding bonds of their own governments. The irony was that the exorbitant interest payments being made in 1990 were largely due to Argentine flight capital and to Brazilian families operating offshore as a "Yankee fund." The fact that it was set up offshore meant that no U.S. investors were allowed to buy its shares.
The biggest investors were political insiders who had bought into the fund knowing that their central banks would pay their dollar debts despite the high risk premiums. While these local oligarchs appeared in the statistics as exploitative "dollar creditors" to their countries, domestic demagogues blamed the Yankees, the IMF, the World Bank and British bankers for enforcing financial austerity on their countries. Yet the dollar debt of Argentina in the early 1990s was owed mainly to Argentineans operating out of offshore banking centers. The major beneficiaries of foreign-debt service were their own flight-capitalists, not bondholders in North America and Europe.
To Argentina, a "foreigner" was likely to be a local oligarch operating out of an offshore account invisible to their government (which consisted largely of their own families). One finds the same phenomenon in Russia today, where a "foreign investor" tends to be a Russian with an offshore account operating out of Cyprus, Switzerland or Liechtenstein, perhaps in partnership with an American or other foreigner for political camouflage.
SS: How did the fund do?
MH: In its first year of operation it became the second highest-performer worldwide. (An Australian real-estate fund was in first place.) Global investors soon got into the act as they watched Latin America's financial oligarchy recycle its own dollarized flight capital back to its countries of origin via offshore enclaves.
However, the fund with which I had been associated was limited to only a five-year duration, because in 1989 it seemed to me that this was all the leeway available to keep siphoning off third-world income until a new crisis loomed. By the time this period was up, in 1994, Mexico's tesobonos had become such an investor favorite that their interest rate fell below 10 percent. The country was selling off its telephone system and other public enterprises whose sale proceeds temporarily were filling the central bank's foreign-exchange reserves--the PRI dictatorship's last act in office before it lost the presidency.
But Mexico teetered on the brink of default in that year's peso crisis, just a dozen years after it had triggered the Latin American "debt bomb" of 1982 by announcing that it could not service its foreign debt. The Clinton administration "rescued" Mexico, or rather, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin rescued its creditors.
SS: So ultimately, speculators in third world dollar bonds lost.
MH: They weren't the only ones. The process involved flight capital being turned into a legacy of foreign official debt. Argentina even was convinced to join the ranks of Panama and Liberia by dollarizing its economy. Rather than creating domestic credit itself by running budget deficits as other nations do, its government issued an enormous volume of bonds payable in dollars. Their interest rates fell below the 10 percent level as investors in the creditor nations wanted to believe that the secret of monetary solvency had been found. Foreign dollars were borrowed to finance domestic policies.
Meanwhile, the decline in interest rates resulting from the rise in "confidence" in Argentina's folly provided rich capital gains for investors who had bought the bonds at so low a price that they yielded four or five times as high a return. But what is confidence, after all, but an opportunity to play the confidence game--a game at which financial underwriters have honed their skill for centuries! The Scudder fund and other early investors sold off their bonds to the new mutual funds and other buyers inexperienced with international risk during the bubbling '90s when everyone tried to top the returns of others, regardless of where the long run was leading.
This promoted a needless foreign indebtedness, whose collapse today threatens to split Argentina away from other nations. Then in 2001 the debt pyramid collapsed, and the bonds have now plummeted. This wiped out a substantial portion of "bad savings" that were the book-keeping counterparts to these bad debts.
Some policy alternatives
SS: How much money in these centers is illegal flight capital and savings out of tax evasion?
MH: The remarkable thing is the extent to which investors have made the use of these centers legally. In sponsoring the Eurodollar, for instance, the British government encouraged the creation of tax-avoidance entrepôts on some of the islands located in the otherwise inhospitable English Channel and North Sea. By the simple act of registering ownership of their real estate in one of these islands, British property owners are permitted to avoid paying capital gains taxes, as these are not charged on "foreign" investors.
SS: What's the difference between a tax avoider and a tax evader?
MH: It's legal to make use of existing laws to minimize one's tax liability. A tax evader is someone who violates the law by making false statements or engages in complex financial operations that have no economic function except to avoid paying taxes.
SS: So Britain's logic was much the same as America's in the 1960s: It needed the money, regardless of where it came from. The cost ended up making it easier to avoid taxes.
MH: The logic was that sterling needed foreign investment to support its exchange rate. The main effect, however, was to provide tax favoritism to large domestic investors as opposed to home owners or small investors who did not establish foreign accounts. A British investor can set up a dummy corporation in these enclaves and avoid paying taxes on resale gains on their land and buildings, stocks and bonds or other assets.
It is all perfectly legal, as any country has the right to levy--or not to levy--taxes on wealth, capital gains or income. Inasmuch as capital gains tend to outstrip the growth of earned income, the economic role of such offshore centers is central to global wealth accumulation. As global asset-price inflation gained momentum during the 1980s and '90s, the attractiveness of such centers has increased proportionally. This means that economists hardly can analyze the growth and polarization of national and global wealth without taking into account the web of financial claims and liabilities associated with these centers.
SS: But there is a growing overlayer of illegality, isn't there?
MH: Certainly, but it's been merged into "invisibles" as far as economic statistics are concerned, and economic theory too for that matter. Crime is one of the key sectors for which no estimates are made. Yet it is perhaps the most liquid, as dictators and kleptocrats, embezzlers and drug dealers fear to tie down their assets in visible form. The newest additions to the world's rentier class, they have become a fount of liquidity for today's economies.
Russia has suffered $25 billion in flight capital annually since 1990. Its IMF bailout loan of August 1997 disappeared into an obscure bank in Britain's Channel Islands, from whence it was forwarded to Cyprus, Switzerland and the United States. Most IMF lending to Africa and Latin America has been fully absorbed by capital flight, subsidizing it under the euphemism of "currency stabilization." What is being stabilized is mainly the rate at which this flight capital is exchanged for hard currency (if one still can call dollars a hard currency).
SS: How might governments counter this ploy to tax this money?
MH: That is what is being debated in Russia these days. It seems that the only kind of tax that can be collected from multinationals today is to tax what is visible, not what is invisible--that is, invisible to the national economic statistician and tax-collecting office. Russians are discussing a rent tax levied in the form of an excess profits tax on oil and mining exporters.
SS: If we look at the balance sheets as they stand, the offshore banking centers appear as net creditors, and the rest of the world's countries are net debtors?
MH: Not quite. The "savers" who have accounts in these offshore banking centers have claims on them that, in turn, represent the liabilities of these enclaves that offset their claims on the rest of the world. But the financial claims held by these havens are owed in turn to their offshore "savers."
What is missing from the data that should be there are the claims by these "savers"--the tax avoiders, criminals and so forth--on these offshore havens, classified in terms of their country of origin. These surreptitious savings get lost in the IMF's "errors and omissions" line. This is because the Dutch West Indies, for example, may owe money to a Panamanian shell, which owes money to an Isle of Man shell, and so on. The ultimate hot-money claimants are hard to identify. Deposit inflows to these enclaves find their balance-sheet counterpart in their own rising indebtedness to tax avoiders and dodgers in Europe, North and South America, Asia and Africa. But the statistics are silent as to just who these invisible savers actually are and where they really reside.
An Argentinean or Russian exporter sells at a fictitiously low invoice price, asking the buyer to deposit the difference in an offshore bank account. Needless to say, the Argentinean or Russian will not declare this holding, so it doesn't appear in the official accounts. But it exists in reality. This is why the world's reported debts exceed the locatable savings by an "errors and omissions" margin.
SS: How exactly does this false invoicing work?
MH: In two ways. The simplest is for importers to claim to pay more for imports than their true economic price. This is what the oil companies do when they price crude oil so high to their refineries that the refineries have no room to report a profit, decade after decade.
The mirror image of this fraud occurs when exporters claim to receive less than they actually are paid. The margin is what they are able to embezzle. The buyer typically pays the difference to a "private" account in one of the offshore banking centers, facilitated by one of the U.S. or British or Canadian banks set up for this helpful purpose. This is the meaning of bank "privacy." It is how Russian exporters of oil, aluminum and other raw materials conceal their actual income from the Russian government. It explains the emergence of so many post-Soviet multi-billionaires benefiting from "unexplained enrichment."
SS: Doesn't the Russian government still raise most of its taxes from oil and other raw-materials exports?
MH: Yes, but it fails to tax the actual income. If it did, Mr. Khodorkovsky and other kleptocrats would not have suddenly risen to join the ranks of the world's wealthiest individuals in merely a single decade, and would not now be under prosecution for criminal tax evasion. It is significant that the financial press in the West writes anguished editorials accusing this of representing nothing less than brown-shirted fascism, nationalism and totalitarianism. Bush administration hacks such as Secretary of State Powell publicly express their worry that this threatens the very foundations of "private enterprise." This show how little they think of punishing tax evasion in their own countries.
SS: I assume that we'll get to cover these machinations in greater detail in our up-coming interview on Russia after its March 14 presidential election. Returning to the topic of offshore banking centers, are you describing a technique that has been developed simply by individuals, or has it been institutionalized on a higher, economy-wide plane?
MH: The largest accounting and law firms of North America and Europe have got a rising proportion of their income for providing advice to companies seeking to make use of these tactics. The primary users are money managers and leading corporations to conceal their profits (or losses, in the case of Enron and Parmalat) from oversight by the authorities in their own countries. By the 1990s, Enron, Parmalat and other giant corporate criminals were able to organize the largest financial frauds in history by using structured finance involving hot-money havens.
SS: Isn't there a U.S. law against arranging a complex business practice solely for the purpose of evading taxes?
MH: The law is indeed on the books, and the IRS has complained specifically that the KPMG firm has organized systematic tax-evasion schemes. But the neoliberals have placed their own ideological administrators in these agencies, men who have bragged to me that they simply refuse to regulate to "kill the beast," that is, government, which is supposed to be the economy's guiding brain. Their non-action has corrupted the national legal and regulatory system by disabling it. Power is being wielded by campaign contributors whose wealth has convinced politicians to give tax evaders the right to blackball any regulatory agency who shows himself or herself to be too conscientious in applying the law, above all the tax code.
SS: What about New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer?
MH: He obviously recognizes what is going on, and seems to have been astounded to discover how far the rot has spread. What he found while bringing criminal charges against Arthur Andersen in the Enron case was that every major accounting firm was engaging in the same fraudulent practices. This created a practical problem for him. Was he going to close down every accounting firm by applying the law across the board?
If he had done this, who would have audited the books of America's companies? It would have crashed the stock market and the entire economy. So he settled for fining the banks and financial and accounting firms a very small portion of their gains, leaving their partners with their comfortable retirement takings and making them promise to stop breaking the law in the future.
On the other hand, I think that even if he closed down these firms--and remember, I used to work for Arthur Andersen and found it thoroughly venal already in the 1960s--the system would have healed itself almost overnight. The existing firms as such would have been wiped out and many of their leading partners would have gone to jail--probably not more than a few hundred--or at least would have lost their retirement payoffs. But most of the remaining accountants would have gotten together to create new firms, free of the taint of corruption that has characterized Deloitte Touche in the Parmalat case, KPMG for its tax-evasion schemes, and the other accounting firms right down the board.
SS: How deeply can the problems be traced?
MH: The path leading to this state of affairs was opened up at the close of World War II. U.S. diplomats brought pressure on the International Monetary Fund to free capital movements, at a time when it was clear enough that most capital flight would be into the dollar, out of economies that were regulated. Euphemized as "economic reform" and "freedom of choice," the move toward financial decontrol cleared the path for the development of offshore havens. That was part of the fatal flaw built into the DNA of the postwar Bretton Woods system.
The U.S. Government remained in control, and as I explained earlier, when the Vietnam War pushed the balance of payments into deficit, the government encouraged the large money-center banks to set up branches in these island enclaves to act as enablers facilitating global theft, fraud and other criminal activity. It has been through their user-friendly operations that the non-criminal world--the world of honest men and women, industry, commerce and even sovereign governments--has become increasingly indebted to lawbreakers, just as taxpayers are increasingly indebted to tax avoiders.
Much of America's net foreign debt, along with that of countries such as Argentina, is owed to these flight-capital centers. This has become the meaning of "globalization" in its financial dimension.
I pointed out above that deposit inflows to these havens are matched in the official statistics by other countries' "errors and omissions." The world's most important economic phenomena that determine exchange rates today have been relegated to the unseen "black" economy--not only crime, but what is becoming the dominant mass of corporate and personal wealth. It is more "invisible" today than ever, in order to avoid the eyes of prosecutors and tax authorities.
What is remarkable is that neoliberals praise rather than denounce this phenomenon. The upshot has been to create a situation in which, if one must own land, other tangible assets, or financial securities, the best way to avoid taxation or seizure is to register them in the name of offshore proxies.
The next step for these offshore entities is to loan this money back to oneself, charging enough interest to absorb the erstwhile taxable revenue. Operators large enough to set up their own insurance company can charge off the remainder of their income as tax-deductible insurance payments to their offshore entity created for this purpose, along with the usual skimming charge for management fees to owners and senior managers.
Financially sophisticated operators send their money offshore and then borrow it back, paying enough interest, insurance and management fees to themselves to absorb their earnings and thus render themselves free of taxes. These payments expensed to oneself appear in national income and tax statistics as a cost of doing business, while balance-of-payments statistics report them as an international outflow for "services" under the rubric of "invisibles." So statistics become increasingly fictitious.
SS: You have described how the rise of these centers has led to economic statistics losing their value. How can the economy be analyzed and quantified under these conditions?
MH: Financial havens help income and capital gains disappear from the statistics of national economies as flight capital, only to reappear as debts owed by victimized economies to "foreigners" operating out of these enclaves. Their balance-of-payments transactions appear as "errors and omissions." Most economists know that this is a euphemism for "short-term capital movements," which itself is a euphemism for capital flight and tax evasion.
The basic perception is that what one can avoid reporting to national authorities will not be regulated, taxed or prosecuted. Strategy along these lines reflects decades of lobbying by the world's wealthiest companies and individuals to disable their governments' ability to tax them. Accounting firms, law firms and global banks help them by using "structured finance" to conceal their income and wealth--as well as their debts and financial fraud. The more crooked the client, the larger the fee that can be charged for the advice being orchestrated to guarantee privacy. In a society where crime pays better than most honest professions, financial and banking expertise is for hire. The experts will happily go to work for Enron and Parlamat, salving their conscience by believing that this is all part of the free market impelling civilization forward and leaving Communism by the wayside in the world economy's struggle for existence between competing systems.
The symbiosis between offshore banking centers and oligarchic, kleptocratic and criminal wealth can be traced in the lawsuits that have graced the front pages of the international press in recent years. The largest bankruptcies in recent years have involved machinations via such centers. In Parmalat's bankruptcy the legal defense by the company's auditors, Deloitte and Touche, is that they had no reasonable way of knowing that the $4 billion in alleged deposits in an offshore Bank of America hot-money account did not really exist. Other poster boys for this predatory universe of flight capital are the offshore entities created by Arthur Andersen and Citibank for Enron, the Swiss banks renowned for serving Idi Amin and other warlords, and the Bank of New York and its brethren that helped Russia's oligarchs embezzle $250 billion in the 1990s.
Once the fiscal ploys are spelled out in detail, attentive readers may recognize that what is being described is how today's multinationals typically are structured to extract revenue and minimize (that is, to avoid) taxes. Economists since John Maynard Keynes have used the word "leakage" to describe funds withdrawn internationally from the domestic income stream. The term implies that money is being lost, and of course it is lost to the tax collector. But it does not simply disappear. Placed in the world's anti-government centers, flight capital takes on a creditor power that is indebting North America, Europe, Asia and Africa, siphoning off their financial surplus in ways that remain invisible to most statisticians and economists, politicians and voters.
SS: You paint a discouraging picture. What is the point in trying to tax corporate and financial income at all, if transactions with these islands are not simply closed down?
MH: A choice is indeed being forced. If these tax-cheating havens are not closed down, the only people left to tax will be the middle class and employees.
Companies now file two sets of annual accounts. One is for their stockholders, and another is for the tax collector. The tax account shows no profit, because companies don't want to pay taxes. The report to stockholders shows a maximum profit, because companies want to boost the price of their stock. Voters have elected politicians whose electoral campaigns are paid for by lobbies who are hired to mobilize support for this policy, while academic chairs are endowed to hire well-meaning fools or "useful idiots" to teach this anti-government philosophy as representing positive "reform" rather than depicting it as outright parasitism.
The public is being misled in two ways. First of all, governments are given tax returns that show profits as shrinking, through artificial book-keeping that becomes the basis for official statistics. Meanwhile, stockholders are being given stories of fictitiously high profits, at least in the cases of Enron and Parmalat.
The clients of this floating island world use a system that has been put in place by pillars of business integrity representing the global economy's core, not merely a peripheral underworld constituency. These enclaves belong at the center of economic analysis, yet they usually are treated as an anomaly rather than as an integral organ of modern wealth accumulation.
SS: How might these offshore centers be shut down? The law says that you cannot punish or fine people following the laws that apply in their own day. You cannot lay down penalties retroactively.
MH:You don't have to. Laws against fraud, embezzlement and tax evasion have been on the books for many years, although many of these laws have not been seriously enforced. One of the easiest laws to enforce is the principle of "unexplained enrichment." This is, by the way, how the world's great fortunes were created--and what Putin is applying against Mr. Khodorkovsky.
Banks in the United States, Canada, Europe and Asia would agree not to recognize deposit transfers from these centers. Companies and brokerage houses would refuse to pay dividends to addresses in them. Countries would lay down rules for legitimization of ownership of these deposits, corporate shares or other financial claims.
One standard question no doubt would be to ask how one came to obtain holdings in these centers. Was this wealth obtained out of one's normal income? If not, how?
A broader solution would be simply not to recognize banking and creditor claims from these centers. This would be a start repudiating the world's bad debts.
SS:This would have to be done suddenly, of course. We'd better leave this broader context for a future interview.
An Insider Spills the Beans on Offshore Banking Centers
Standard Schaefer interviews Michael Hudson
Counterpunch, 25 March 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 28 March 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HUD403A.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The oil industry created the practice of countries (SHIPS?) flying "flags of convenience" as a means of avoiding income taxes nearly a century ago. Since the 1960s the U.S. Government itself has encouraged American banks to set up branches in Caribbean hot-money centers and more distant islands as a means of attracting foreign money into the dollar. The initial aim was to help finance the Vietnam War by turning America into a new Switzerland for the world's hot money.
This policy succeeded in turning the United States into a flight-capital center for third-world dictators, Mexican presidents and Russian oligarchs. The former Soviet Union now finances a substantial portion of the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit with the flight capital that neoliberal "reformers" facilitated by backing the kleptocrats. The result has grown into a full-blown system enabling multinational corporations to evade taxes everywhere, including the United States itself. It enables domestic investors to globalize their operations by setting up offshore affiliates Enron-style in the Cayman Islands, Dutch West Indies or some small and newly notorious Pacific Island of their choice.
The permissive regulatory system relating to these offshore beachheads of tax avoidance has evolved to a point that enables U.S. and European investors to shed taxes simply by hiring a lawyer to set up a boiler-place office and finding an accounting firm willing to take its records at face value--which is good enough for the tax authorities to accept in these days of downsized fiscal operations. The resulting plunge in the ratio of corporate tax obligations to national income has been a major factor in America's soaring federal budget deficit. Businesses--and especially the financial sector--establish dummy companies and adjust their transfer pricing (e.g. on sales of raw materials to refineries, and of refined or semi-manufactured products to their final distributors in the industrial nations) so as to take all their profits in these tax-free enclaves.
Flight capital would not leave countries without having somewhere safe to go. A rising number of tax-avoidance islands have made use of the fact that they are small enough to adopt whatever tax code they wish. Lawyers acting on behalf of financial and business lobbies in North America and Europe have drawn up laws to turn these banking centers into what Prof. Hudson calls anti-states.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SS: In earlier interviews you described how the economy has been "financialized" in ways that free companies from taxation. What role do offshore tax havens play in this?
MH: Companies set up trading companies in tax-avoidance islands and declare whatever income or capital gains they earn on real estate, stocks or other investments to be made by these shells. This has led to the quip that taxes have become purely voluntary for modern businesses.
SS: How does this affect the domestic U.S. economy?
MH: Un-taxing business income--and financial income in particular--leaves individual taxpayers to bear the fiscal burden through wage withholding for Social Security, Medicare and pension-fund contributions. Consumers also bear a rising burden through the sales tax and other local taxes.
SS: Do the statistics confirm this?
MH: Offshore tax havens enable multinational companies to give an impression that they do not earn any income on business done in countries where taxes are levied at European and North American rates. The reality is that U.S. companies make a lot more money than they report. However, offshore banking centers free them from having to pay taxes on this income, or on capital gains. That's why we're running such high budget deficits today.
SS: I understand you have had a forty-year experience with these offshore banking centers and tax-free enclaves.
MH: I was taught the ropes in the course of my work as a balance-of-payments economist, and later as a mutual-fund manager. My first clue to how these enclaves were set up came when I worked for the Chase Manhattan Bank in 1965-66 and was assigned the task of writing a report on the oil industry's impact on the U.S balance of payments. After reading the usual books about how the cartel operated worldwide, I still had difficulty making my way through the oil industry's income-and-expense statements and the statistics published by the Department of Commerce.
My main problem was to find just where oil companies made their profits. Was it at the production end where crude oil was drilled out of the ground, at the processing stage where the oil was refined, or at the distribution end where it was sold to its end-users to heat buildings, run cars, fly airplanes and make into petrochemicals and plastics?
David Rockefeller arranged for me to meet one afternoon with Jack Bennett, the treasurer of Standard Oil of New Jersey (the old Esso before it changed its name to Exxon). "The profits are made right here in the Treasurer's office," he explained, "wherever I decide." He showed me the broad leeway a vertically organized global conglomerate enjoyed in being able to assign "transfer prices" do as to report the overall profit at whatever point taxes were lowest on oil's statistically labyrinthine journey from wellhead to gas station.
Taxes were lowest (in fact, non-existent) in Panama and Liberia, where the oil industry's tankers duly registered their flags of convenience. Standard Oil priced its crude oil low to these shipping affiliates, and sold it at a high, nearly retail price to refineries and marketing outlets in the industrial oil-consuming nations.
SS: How can someone use the statistics to trace what is happening?
MH: It is not easy to find transactions with these flag-of-convenience countries in the U.S. balance-of-payments statistics. Instead of being listed as bona fide countries in Africa or Latin America, they appear under a rather obscure column heading called "international." Cursory viewers tend to overlook it, as it does not indicate a specific country or region. Some people may imagine that it even refers to venerable international organizations such as the United Nations, IMF or World Bank. But what "international" means is, quite simply, "international shipping" registered under flags of convenience. Quite properly, it doesn't really belong to a foreign nation's economy at all, because it is a legal fiction that U.S. companies simply make use of to produce tax filings on an unrealistic "as if" basis.
SS: You're saying that the statistics are translated into a language of unreality.
MH: A carefully structured unreality--and one that has real-world consequences, to be sure. The essence of this game is that Esso and other oil majors were able to "game" the world's tax systems by selling their crude oil at so low a price to their tanker companies as to leave little income for Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or other oil-producing countries. This discouraged them from taking control of their mineral wealth, especially as they had no tanker fleets to move this oil. The corporate shipping affiliates turned around and sold their oil to their downstream refineries. These generally were located safely offshore in different political jurisdictions (e.g., Trinidad for Venezuelan oil). The oil was transferred at so high a price that despite the heavy capital investment in these facilities, the refiners and distributors reported losses year after year, decade after decade.
SS: How could the tax authorities in Europe and America not catch on to what was happening?
MH: That's where the political lobbying power of major vested interests came into play. Their ability to avoid having to declare earnings on which taxes would be due reflected the passivity of tax collectors in Europe and North America where most downstream facilities were located. One might think that such governments would have imputed a minimum tax, on the principle that any investment must expect to earn at least a normal rate of return; otherwise it would not be made or kept in place. Turning a blind eye to this logic, governments accepted the profit-and-loss statements as company accountants submitted them. They permitted the profits from oil drilling, refining and marketing to disappear down the statistical black hole of international shipping.
Mining companies followed a similar accounting practice with their shipping fleets and refineries. These oil and mineral companies were among the largest multinationals.
SS: You are saying that profits fell statistically, but not really. What does this mean for the theory that market prices allocate resources efficiently by reflecting supply costs and demand?
MH: The development of tax shelters in flag-of-convenience countries to record corporate profits hardly can be viewed as a merely marginal phenomenon. For nearly a century it has played a central role in the U.S. and European economies. But the prices are fictitious rather than a result of being based on actual costs or on supply and demand. Only the immense political power of these extractive sectors could have induced their governments to remain so passive in the face of the fiscal drain they entail--a favorable tax treatment denied to other taxpayers.
Gradually, however, other sectors learned to emulate the strategy of avoiding taxes by using offshore banking centers.
SS: Apart from transfer pricing, were other accounting gimmicks used?
MH: Parent companies consolidated their oil fields in the Near East, Africa and South America into their domestic U.S. balance sheets by organizing them not as corporately distinct foreign affiliates but as "branches." This technicality allowed them to take the full U.S. depletion tax credit against their income. Depleting the resources of other countries was treated as if they were part of the American economy--except that the profits were taken in Liberia and Panama.
SS: Did you have any conflicts working for Chase and the oil companies to produce this report?
MH: I was given free rein. I was told to come up with the best statistics possible. They made it clear that if the answers were not what they and the oil industry expected, they would not publish my report, but at least they wanted to know what the statistical situation was. I accepted the assignment on these terms.
How the Russian and U.S. Governments nurtured offshore capital-flight dollar centers
SS: How did these flag-of-convenience tax havens evolve into offshore financial centers independent of corporate shipping operations?
MH: The common denominator is tax avoidance, but the proliferation of offshore banking centers has taken on a life of its own, based on flight capital and hot money.
SS: Did this also occur as a result of corporate tax maneuvering?
MH: That was not the main motivation. Switzerland and Liechtenstein would have sufficed for the level of flight capital and criminal savings that characterized the 1950s. In order for modern-type hot-money havens to emerge, an institutional set-up had to be created to hold dollars or other hard currencies outside their countries of origin--somewhere that would provide the same degree of "privacy," "confidentiality" and hence immunity from the authorities that Switzerland provided with its notorious bank secrecy laws.
The oil and mineral companies did not break the laws or do anything illegal, and hence did not need this kind of privacy. They simply wrote and amended the tax laws to insert loopholes in their own favor. The actual money was kept in their home offices. But offshore banking centers aimed at a different source of deposits--those which needed to be kept outside the reach of U.S. or European authorities.
SS: So how did the offshore vehicles for dollar deposits develop?
MH: Actually, the great catalysts were the Soviet and U.S. Governments themselves. The story starts with the creation of the Eurodollar market during the Cold War years.
In the late 1950s the Soviet Union had a problem. It needed bank accounts denominated in U.S. dollars to defray its various spending programs in the West. But as the Cold War heated up, it feared that the U.S. Government might confiscate its U.S. bank accounts (much as Chase Manhattan would do to Iran after the Shah was overthrown). Russia therefore approached a number of British banks and suggested that they establish accounts enabling Soviet agencies to keep their dollar receipts denominated in U.S. dollars (rather than converting them into sterling), and to use these dollar accounts to pay dollars various suppliers in the West (not to mention more nefarious agents). British banks agreed, and the Eurodollar market was born--a market for dollar deposits held outside of the United States.
SS: So a great finance-capital innovation was established by the Soviets themselves. Did they realize what they were doing? And by trying to evade U.S. control, did they end up helping or hurting U.S. global interests?
MH: Nobody grasped the implications at first. As so often happens, this financial innovation bred a train of unanticipated consequences. U.S. multinationals found it helpful to hold dollars offshore to facilitate their own transactions, especially as they began to buy European and other foreign firms and establish their own overseas branches.
U.S. banks set up branches in London and other money centers to serve these companies. When monetary policy was tightened during the Vietnam War years, these banks found the easiest supply of money to come from their foreign branches. Bank regulatory agencies had not foreseen this development, and had not imposed any requirement that head offices set aside reserves against the deposits that came from these foreign branches. So Eurodollar deposits became a great source of deposits for the large international U.S. banks to lend out when money was getting tight as a result of the Vietnam War's balance-of-payments drain.
How the U.S. Government urged Chase to set up branches in hot-money centers
SS: What was the most remarkable experience you had with these institutions?
MH: The Vietnam War was pushing the balance of payments into deficit, draining the gold supply that backed the currency. Gold had been America's lever of international financial power since World War I, and now it was flowing out to pay for the war in Southeast Asia.
The Johnson and Nixon administrations knew that if fighting the war meant less consumption at home, voters would oppose the war. So they pursued a guns-and-butter policy, promoting heavy domestic consumption and deficit spending, leaving little to sell abroad. The United States was not willing to permit key economic sectors to be sold to foreigners to balance its international payments, although this is what it directed other debtor countries to do after 1980.
U.S. officials sought to attract foreign exchange in any way they could, but their options were limited. One great possibility remained: attract foreign flight capital. This could be done without raising interest rates at home, but providing a safe haven for foreign hot money. Therefore, what U.S. geopolitical strategists were willing to accept were foreign bank deposits, regardless of where they came from.
In balance-of-payments terms, foreign money being converted into dollars and kept in foreign branches of U.S. banks would do just as well as money in U.S. banks, as long as these deposits were held in dollars rather than in foreign currency.
SS: Was this an explicit policy?
MH: Pretty explicit. This was at a time when so much hot money was going to Switzerland that its franc was becoming the world's hardest currency. American financial strategists sought a policy to support the dollar in much the same way. The State Dept. and Treasury approached the nation's leading international banks with a proposal to do something that they would have feared to do without official inducement. They were to establish and expand their own branches in the world's major capital-flight centers--and perhaps to help establish some new ones. Not only would this attract foreign flight money, it would keep at home the substantial sums were being sent abroad by U.S. tax evaders.
In 1996 a former State Dept. employee who had become a Chase officer asked for my opinion of a memorandum outlining the common interest between U.S. economic diplomacy and the nation's international banks with regard to establishing offshore branches aimed at attracting some of the world's hot money away from Switzerland and other flight-capital centers.
The US is probably the second major flight center in the world, but with little probability of rivaling Switzerland for the foreseeable future. Like Switzerland, flight money probably flows to the US from every country in the world. It is handled almost exclusively by the major New York and Miami brokers, lawyers, and leading commercial banks. Officers of CMB International Department and Trust Department confirm that CMB Home Office itself handles a reasonable amount of foreign flight money. However this is insignificant relative to the total potentially available.
There is general consensus among CMB officers and both US and European experts in the field that US-based and US-controlled entities are badly penalized in competing for flight money with the Swiss or other foreign flight-money centers over the long run. This is because of the following interrelated factors:
(a) The demonstrated ability of the US Treasury, Justice Department, CIA, and FBI to subpoena client records, attach client accounts, and force testimony from US officers of US-controlled entities, with proper US court back-up.
(b) The restrictive US investment and brokerage regulations and policies, which limit the flexibility and secrecy of investment activity.
(c) The US estate tax and US withholding tax on foreign investments.
(d) The role of the US as a major contestant in the Cold War, and resulting likelihood that investments through a US entity may be exposed to any hostility or freeze of assets occurring as a result of the Cold War.
(e) The generally held (and partly unwarranted) view of many sophisticated foreigners that US investment managers are naïve and inexperienced in manipulation of foreign funds, especially in foreign markets.
Despite the above limitations, the US has brought appeal to flight money holders in other respects. These include: The largest and most active securities markets in the world, assuring both liquidity and diversification. Ease of transfer and mechanical handling of investments, partly through US banks' worldwide network. The world's leading reserve currency, the US dollar. In recent years, the unmatched financial stability and one of the highest levels of economic growth of any major industrial nation. Finally, negligible probability of revolution or confiscation, and low probability of inconvertibility.
The memo cited Beirut, Panama, Switzerland and other centers from which the U.S. Government invited Chase to attract international flight capital by placing its services at the disposal of the existing and prospective patrons of dictators, drug dealers, criminals and even Cold War adversaries.
Chase and other major U.S. money-center banks responded by setting up a network of offshore centers to turn America into a high-level Switzerland.
SS: Did this actually occur, and did the government go along with it?
MH: The government and banks were well aware of the fact that crooks are the most liquid people in the world, for the simple reason that they fear to hold property in plain sight of the authorities--except in cases where their actual ownership can be laundered through a maze of dummy companies and name-plates on legal folders in the offices of the offshore lawyers who make their livelihood by managing such financial stratagems. The major American accounting firms, law firms and investment advisors soon got into the business of advising corporations and wealthy clients how to set up offshore bank accounts in the name of paper companies.
SS: This would seem to be a bombshell. Have you ever published this?
MH: I showed it to the Canadian economics professor and journalist Tom Naylor, who reproduced it in 1987 in his book Hot Money, pp. 33-34. The book has been translated into many languages and reprinted numerous times. It is about to be reprinted again this year by McGill-Queens University Press up in Canada, and in fact I'm writing an introduction to the newest edition. But there hasn't really been much discussion, because the topic of hot money remains outside the concerns of most academic economists.
SS: Was there any debate over whether this was the right thing to do?
MH: Yes, a series of Congressional hearings were held, and many excellent reports were included. But right-or-wrong morality didn't play much of a role. One of the main policy issues was simply whether the government should impose a 15 percent withholding tax on foreign holdings of Treasury securities, on the ground that this would probably be the only tax revenue it would recover. Government spokesmen (WHO, WHAT DEPARTMENTS?) convinced Congress not to impose the tax, on the ground that this would discourage foreign hot money--and also U.S. hot money, for that matter--from holding Treasury bonds. The United States needed every market it could create for its bonds at this time, to stem the gold outflow. So the foreign withholding tax was abolished.
SS: In other words, the Treasury permitted domestic U.S. tax avoidance to occur in order to get a balance-of-payments inflow into the dollar, and to hold down domestic interest rates.
MH: Yes. The I.R.S. already had permitted tax avoidance to occur under pressure from the large multinationals such as the oil and mining companies. Vertical integration enabled them to administer transfer pricing in a way that minimized their global tax liability. Refraining from taxing the interest paid on U.S. Treasury bonds favored U.S. hot money.
By the late 1960s the United States was well on the way to making America the leading haven for the world's flight capital. Citibank, Chase and others established or expanded operations for their "private banking" subsidiaries offering "confidentiality" to clients ranging from Mexico's leading politicians to Russia's kleptocrats in the 1990s.
SS: But the price was to give international law-breakers a better tax treatment than law-abiding and tax-paying citizens.
MH: Yes, and there's a reason for that. The striking thing is that the most liquid savers in today's society are criminals and tax evaders. They have a good reason to avoid real estate or other tangible property. It is too visible to prosecutors and tax authorities. That is why balance-of-payments statistics classify capital movements as "invisibles." Prestigious accounting firms and law partnerships busy themselves devising tax-avoidance ploys and creating a "veil of tiers" to provide a cloak of invisibility for the wealth built up by embezzlers, tax evaders, a few drug dealers, arms dealers and government intelligence agencies to use for their covert operations.
SS: So all this made finance capital more cosmopolitan and less subject to national regulation and government control.
MH: Yes, and by the late 1980s U.S. money managers were incorporating offshore mutual funds to tap global capital markets.
How hot-money centers turn capital flight into a market for government debts
SS: What was the effect of these tax havens and banking centers on the economies of other countries?
MH: Just as the U.S. authorities hoped, the world's hot money found it most convenient to go into dollarized offshore banking centers.
SS: Can you give an example of how this worked?
MH: In 1989 I was hired by the Boston money-management firm of Scudder, Stevens and Clark to spend a few months of my life organizing a sovereign-debt fund, that is, a fund investing in the bonds of third world governments. This was the world's first such fund, and it started what would become a torrent of issues in the 1990s. But at that early stage Scudder was unable to find American clients willing to put $75 million into a region where they had been burned badly in the aftermath of Mexico's 1982 insolvency.
On the other hand, that traumatic event had pushed borrowing rates up to nearly 45 percent annually for Argentine and Brazilian dollar-denominated government bonds, and about 25 percent for Mexico's dollar-denominated medium-term tesobonos. These rates enabled the fund to be more successful in finding foreign buyers. Incorporated in the Netherlands Antilles (Dutch West Indies) as the Sovereign High -Yield Investment Co. N.V., its shares were listed on the London Stock Exchange. The underwriter, Merrill Lynch, sold them mostly to well-connected Argentine families through its Buenos Aires office, with the balance taken mainly by Brazilian and other Latin American buyers.
Their money was invested in the high-yielding bonds of their own governments. The irony was that the exorbitant interest payments being made in 1990 were largely due to Argentine flight capital and to Brazilian families operating offshore as a "Yankee fund." The fact that it was set up offshore meant that no U.S. investors were allowed to buy its shares.
The biggest investors were political insiders who had bought into the fund knowing that their central banks would pay their dollar debts despite the high risk premiums. While these local oligarchs appeared in the statistics as exploitative "dollar creditors" to their countries, domestic demagogues blamed the Yankees, the IMF, the World Bank and British bankers for enforcing financial austerity on their countries. Yet the dollar debt of Argentina in the early 1990s was owed mainly to Argentineans operating out of offshore banking centers. The major beneficiaries of foreign-debt service were their own flight-capitalists, not bondholders in North America and Europe.
To Argentina, a "foreigner" was likely to be a local oligarch operating out of an offshore account invisible to their government (which consisted largely of their own families). One finds the same phenomenon in Russia today, where a "foreign investor" tends to be a Russian with an offshore account operating out of Cyprus, Switzerland or Liechtenstein, perhaps in partnership with an American or other foreigner for political camouflage.
SS: How did the fund do?
MH: In its first year of operation it became the second highest-performer worldwide. (An Australian real-estate fund was in first place.) Global investors soon got into the act as they watched Latin America's financial oligarchy recycle its own dollarized flight capital back to its countries of origin via offshore enclaves.
However, the fund with which I had been associated was limited to only a five-year duration, because in 1989 it seemed to me that this was all the leeway available to keep siphoning off third-world income until a new crisis loomed. By the time this period was up, in 1994, Mexico's tesobonos had become such an investor favorite that their interest rate fell below 10 percent. The country was selling off its telephone system and other public enterprises whose sale proceeds temporarily were filling the central bank's foreign-exchange reserves--the PRI dictatorship's last act in office before it lost the presidency.
But Mexico teetered on the brink of default in that year's peso crisis, just a dozen years after it had triggered the Latin American "debt bomb" of 1982 by announcing that it could not service its foreign debt. The Clinton administration "rescued" Mexico, or rather, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin rescued its creditors.
SS: So ultimately, speculators in third world dollar bonds lost.
MH: They weren't the only ones. The process involved flight capital being turned into a legacy of foreign official debt. Argentina even was convinced to join the ranks of Panama and Liberia by dollarizing its economy. Rather than creating domestic credit itself by running budget deficits as other nations do, its government issued an enormous volume of bonds payable in dollars. Their interest rates fell below the 10 percent level as investors in the creditor nations wanted to believe that the secret of monetary solvency had been found. Foreign dollars were borrowed to finance domestic policies.
Meanwhile, the decline in interest rates resulting from the rise in "confidence" in Argentina's folly provided rich capital gains for investors who had bought the bonds at so low a price that they yielded four or five times as high a return. But what is confidence, after all, but an opportunity to play the confidence game--a game at which financial underwriters have honed their skill for centuries! The Scudder fund and other early investors sold off their bonds to the new mutual funds and other buyers inexperienced with international risk during the bubbling '90s when everyone tried to top the returns of others, regardless of where the long run was leading.
This promoted a needless foreign indebtedness, whose collapse today threatens to split Argentina away from other nations. Then in 2001 the debt pyramid collapsed, and the bonds have now plummeted. This wiped out a substantial portion of "bad savings" that were the book-keeping counterparts to these bad debts.
Some policy alternatives
SS: How much money in these centers is illegal flight capital and savings out of tax evasion?
MH: The remarkable thing is the extent to which investors have made the use of these centers legally. In sponsoring the Eurodollar, for instance, the British government encouraged the creation of tax-avoidance entrepôts on some of the islands located in the otherwise inhospitable English Channel and North Sea. By the simple act of registering ownership of their real estate in one of these islands, British property owners are permitted to avoid paying capital gains taxes, as these are not charged on "foreign" investors.
SS: What's the difference between a tax avoider and a tax evader?
MH: It's legal to make use of existing laws to minimize one's tax liability. A tax evader is someone who violates the law by making false statements or engages in complex financial operations that have no economic function except to avoid paying taxes.
SS: So Britain's logic was much the same as America's in the 1960s: It needed the money, regardless of where it came from. The cost ended up making it easier to avoid taxes.
MH: The logic was that sterling needed foreign investment to support its exchange rate. The main effect, however, was to provide tax favoritism to large domestic investors as opposed to home owners or small investors who did not establish foreign accounts. A British investor can set up a dummy corporation in these enclaves and avoid paying taxes on resale gains on their land and buildings, stocks and bonds or other assets.
It is all perfectly legal, as any country has the right to levy--or not to levy--taxes on wealth, capital gains or income. Inasmuch as capital gains tend to outstrip the growth of earned income, the economic role of such offshore centers is central to global wealth accumulation. As global asset-price inflation gained momentum during the 1980s and '90s, the attractiveness of such centers has increased proportionally. This means that economists hardly can analyze the growth and polarization of national and global wealth without taking into account the web of financial claims and liabilities associated with these centers.
SS: But there is a growing overlayer of illegality, isn't there?
MH: Certainly, but it's been merged into "invisibles" as far as economic statistics are concerned, and economic theory too for that matter. Crime is one of the key sectors for which no estimates are made. Yet it is perhaps the most liquid, as dictators and kleptocrats, embezzlers and drug dealers fear to tie down their assets in visible form. The newest additions to the world's rentier class, they have become a fount of liquidity for today's economies.
Russia has suffered $25 billion in flight capital annually since 1990. Its IMF bailout loan of August 1997 disappeared into an obscure bank in Britain's Channel Islands, from whence it was forwarded to Cyprus, Switzerland and the United States. Most IMF lending to Africa and Latin America has been fully absorbed by capital flight, subsidizing it under the euphemism of "currency stabilization." What is being stabilized is mainly the rate at which this flight capital is exchanged for hard currency (if one still can call dollars a hard currency).
SS: How might governments counter this ploy to tax this money?
MH: That is what is being debated in Russia these days. It seems that the only kind of tax that can be collected from multinationals today is to tax what is visible, not what is invisible--that is, invisible to the national economic statistician and tax-collecting office. Russians are discussing a rent tax levied in the form of an excess profits tax on oil and mining exporters.
SS: If we look at the balance sheets as they stand, the offshore banking centers appear as net creditors, and the rest of the world's countries are net debtors?
MH: Not quite. The "savers" who have accounts in these offshore banking centers have claims on them that, in turn, represent the liabilities of these enclaves that offset their claims on the rest of the world. But the financial claims held by these havens are owed in turn to their offshore "savers."
What is missing from the data that should be there are the claims by these "savers"--the tax avoiders, criminals and so forth--on these offshore havens, classified in terms of their country of origin. These surreptitious savings get lost in the IMF's "errors and omissions" line. This is because the Dutch West Indies, for example, may owe money to a Panamanian shell, which owes money to an Isle of Man shell, and so on. The ultimate hot-money claimants are hard to identify. Deposit inflows to these enclaves find their balance-sheet counterpart in their own rising indebtedness to tax avoiders and dodgers in Europe, North and South America, Asia and Africa. But the statistics are silent as to just who these invisible savers actually are and where they really reside.
An Argentinean or Russian exporter sells at a fictitiously low invoice price, asking the buyer to deposit the difference in an offshore bank account. Needless to say, the Argentinean or Russian will not declare this holding, so it doesn't appear in the official accounts. But it exists in reality. This is why the world's reported debts exceed the locatable savings by an "errors and omissions" margin.
SS: How exactly does this false invoicing work?
MH: In two ways. The simplest is for importers to claim to pay more for imports than their true economic price. This is what the oil companies do when they price crude oil so high to their refineries that the refineries have no room to report a profit, decade after decade.
The mirror image of this fraud occurs when exporters claim to receive less than they actually are paid. The margin is what they are able to embezzle. The buyer typically pays the difference to a "private" account in one of the offshore banking centers, facilitated by one of the U.S. or British or Canadian banks set up for this helpful purpose. This is the meaning of bank "privacy." It is how Russian exporters of oil, aluminum and other raw materials conceal their actual income from the Russian government. It explains the emergence of so many post-Soviet multi-billionaires benefiting from "unexplained enrichment."
SS: Doesn't the Russian government still raise most of its taxes from oil and other raw-materials exports?
MH: Yes, but it fails to tax the actual income. If it did, Mr. Khodorkovsky and other kleptocrats would not have suddenly risen to join the ranks of the world's wealthiest individuals in merely a single decade, and would not now be under prosecution for criminal tax evasion. It is significant that the financial press in the West writes anguished editorials accusing this of representing nothing less than brown-shirted fascism, nationalism and totalitarianism. Bush administration hacks such as Secretary of State Powell publicly express their worry that this threatens the very foundations of "private enterprise." This show how little they think of punishing tax evasion in their own countries.
SS: I assume that we'll get to cover these machinations in greater detail in our up-coming interview on Russia after its March 14 presidential election. Returning to the topic of offshore banking centers, are you describing a technique that has been developed simply by individuals, or has it been institutionalized on a higher, economy-wide plane?
MH: The largest accounting and law firms of North America and Europe have got a rising proportion of their income for providing advice to companies seeking to make use of these tactics. The primary users are money managers and leading corporations to conceal their profits (or losses, in the case of Enron and Parmalat) from oversight by the authorities in their own countries. By the 1990s, Enron, Parmalat and other giant corporate criminals were able to organize the largest financial frauds in history by using structured finance involving hot-money havens.
SS: Isn't there a U.S. law against arranging a complex business practice solely for the purpose of evading taxes?
MH: The law is indeed on the books, and the IRS has complained specifically that the KPMG firm has organized systematic tax-evasion schemes. But the neoliberals have placed their own ideological administrators in these agencies, men who have bragged to me that they simply refuse to regulate to "kill the beast," that is, government, which is supposed to be the economy's guiding brain. Their non-action has corrupted the national legal and regulatory system by disabling it. Power is being wielded by campaign contributors whose wealth has convinced politicians to give tax evaders the right to blackball any regulatory agency who shows himself or herself to be too conscientious in applying the law, above all the tax code.
SS: What about New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer?
MH: He obviously recognizes what is going on, and seems to have been astounded to discover how far the rot has spread. What he found while bringing criminal charges against Arthur Andersen in the Enron case was that every major accounting firm was engaging in the same fraudulent practices. This created a practical problem for him. Was he going to close down every accounting firm by applying the law across the board?
If he had done this, who would have audited the books of America's companies? It would have crashed the stock market and the entire economy. So he settled for fining the banks and financial and accounting firms a very small portion of their gains, leaving their partners with their comfortable retirement takings and making them promise to stop breaking the law in the future.
On the other hand, I think that even if he closed down these firms--and remember, I used to work for Arthur Andersen and found it thoroughly venal already in the 1960s--the system would have healed itself almost overnight. The existing firms as such would have been wiped out and many of their leading partners would have gone to jail--probably not more than a few hundred--or at least would have lost their retirement payoffs. But most of the remaining accountants would have gotten together to create new firms, free of the taint of corruption that has characterized Deloitte Touche in the Parmalat case, KPMG for its tax-evasion schemes, and the other accounting firms right down the board.
SS: How deeply can the problems be traced?
MH: The path leading to this state of affairs was opened up at the close of World War II. U.S. diplomats brought pressure on the International Monetary Fund to free capital movements, at a time when it was clear enough that most capital flight would be into the dollar, out of economies that were regulated. Euphemized as "economic reform" and "freedom of choice," the move toward financial decontrol cleared the path for the development of offshore havens. That was part of the fatal flaw built into the DNA of the postwar Bretton Woods system.
The U.S. Government remained in control, and as I explained earlier, when the Vietnam War pushed the balance of payments into deficit, the government encouraged the large money-center banks to set up branches in these island enclaves to act as enablers facilitating global theft, fraud and other criminal activity. It has been through their user-friendly operations that the non-criminal world--the world of honest men and women, industry, commerce and even sovereign governments--has become increasingly indebted to lawbreakers, just as taxpayers are increasingly indebted to tax avoiders.
Much of America's net foreign debt, along with that of countries such as Argentina, is owed to these flight-capital centers. This has become the meaning of "globalization" in its financial dimension.
I pointed out above that deposit inflows to these havens are matched in the official statistics by other countries' "errors and omissions." The world's most important economic phenomena that determine exchange rates today have been relegated to the unseen "black" economy--not only crime, but what is becoming the dominant mass of corporate and personal wealth. It is more "invisible" today than ever, in order to avoid the eyes of prosecutors and tax authorities.
What is remarkable is that neoliberals praise rather than denounce this phenomenon. The upshot has been to create a situation in which, if one must own land, other tangible assets, or financial securities, the best way to avoid taxation or seizure is to register them in the name of offshore proxies.
The next step for these offshore entities is to loan this money back to oneself, charging enough interest to absorb the erstwhile taxable revenue. Operators large enough to set up their own insurance company can charge off the remainder of their income as tax-deductible insurance payments to their offshore entity created for this purpose, along with the usual skimming charge for management fees to owners and senior managers.
Financially sophisticated operators send their money offshore and then borrow it back, paying enough interest, insurance and management fees to themselves to absorb their earnings and thus render themselves free of taxes. These payments expensed to oneself appear in national income and tax statistics as a cost of doing business, while balance-of-payments statistics report them as an international outflow for "services" under the rubric of "invisibles." So statistics become increasingly fictitious.
SS: You have described how the rise of these centers has led to economic statistics losing their value. How can the economy be analyzed and quantified under these conditions?
MH: Financial havens help income and capital gains disappear from the statistics of national economies as flight capital, only to reappear as debts owed by victimized economies to "foreigners" operating out of these enclaves. Their balance-of-payments transactions appear as "errors and omissions." Most economists know that this is a euphemism for "short-term capital movements," which itself is a euphemism for capital flight and tax evasion.
The basic perception is that what one can avoid reporting to national authorities will not be regulated, taxed or prosecuted. Strategy along these lines reflects decades of lobbying by the world's wealthiest companies and individuals to disable their governments' ability to tax them. Accounting firms, law firms and global banks help them by using "structured finance" to conceal their income and wealth--as well as their debts and financial fraud. The more crooked the client, the larger the fee that can be charged for the advice being orchestrated to guarantee privacy. In a society where crime pays better than most honest professions, financial and banking expertise is for hire. The experts will happily go to work for Enron and Parlamat, salving their conscience by believing that this is all part of the free market impelling civilization forward and leaving Communism by the wayside in the world economy's struggle for existence between competing systems.
The symbiosis between offshore banking centers and oligarchic, kleptocratic and criminal wealth can be traced in the lawsuits that have graced the front pages of the international press in recent years. The largest bankruptcies in recent years have involved machinations via such centers. In Parmalat's bankruptcy the legal defense by the company's auditors, Deloitte and Touche, is that they had no reasonable way of knowing that the $4 billion in alleged deposits in an offshore Bank of America hot-money account did not really exist. Other poster boys for this predatory universe of flight capital are the offshore entities created by Arthur Andersen and Citibank for Enron, the Swiss banks renowned for serving Idi Amin and other warlords, and the Bank of New York and its brethren that helped Russia's oligarchs embezzle $250 billion in the 1990s.
Once the fiscal ploys are spelled out in detail, attentive readers may recognize that what is being described is how today's multinationals typically are structured to extract revenue and minimize (that is, to avoid) taxes. Economists since John Maynard Keynes have used the word "leakage" to describe funds withdrawn internationally from the domestic income stream. The term implies that money is being lost, and of course it is lost to the tax collector. But it does not simply disappear. Placed in the world's anti-government centers, flight capital takes on a creditor power that is indebting North America, Europe, Asia and Africa, siphoning off their financial surplus in ways that remain invisible to most statisticians and economists, politicians and voters.
SS: You paint a discouraging picture. What is the point in trying to tax corporate and financial income at all, if transactions with these islands are not simply closed down?
MH: A choice is indeed being forced. If these tax-cheating havens are not closed down, the only people left to tax will be the middle class and employees.
Companies now file two sets of annual accounts. One is for their stockholders, and another is for the tax collector. The tax account shows no profit, because companies don't want to pay taxes. The report to stockholders shows a maximum profit, because companies want to boost the price of their stock. Voters have elected politicians whose electoral campaigns are paid for by lobbies who are hired to mobilize support for this policy, while academic chairs are endowed to hire well-meaning fools or "useful idiots" to teach this anti-government philosophy as representing positive "reform" rather than depicting it as outright parasitism.
The public is being misled in two ways. First of all, governments are given tax returns that show profits as shrinking, through artificial book-keeping that becomes the basis for official statistics. Meanwhile, stockholders are being given stories of fictitiously high profits, at least in the cases of Enron and Parmalat.
The clients of this floating island world use a system that has been put in place by pillars of business integrity representing the global economy's core, not merely a peripheral underworld constituency. These enclaves belong at the center of economic analysis, yet they usually are treated as an anomaly rather than as an integral organ of modern wealth accumulation.
SS: How might these offshore centers be shut down? The law says that you cannot punish or fine people following the laws that apply in their own day. You cannot lay down penalties retroactively.
MH:You don't have to. Laws against fraud, embezzlement and tax evasion have been on the books for many years, although many of these laws have not been seriously enforced. One of the easiest laws to enforce is the principle of "unexplained enrichment." This is, by the way, how the world's great fortunes were created--and what Putin is applying against Mr. Khodorkovsky.
Banks in the United States, Canada, Europe and Asia would agree not to recognize deposit transfers from these centers. Companies and brokerage houses would refuse to pay dividends to addresses in them. Countries would lay down rules for legitimization of ownership of these deposits, corporate shares or other financial claims.
One standard question no doubt would be to ask how one came to obtain holdings in these centers. Was this wealth obtained out of one's normal income? If not, how?
A broader solution would be simply not to recognize banking and creditor claims from these centers. This would be a start repudiating the world's bad debts.
SS:This would have to be done suddenly, of course. We'd better leave this broader context for a future interview.
the UPTICK RULE: put option shorts with prior knowledge of 9/11 FALSE FLAG BY POWER KIKE CONTROL GROUP: GOP, MOSSAD, CIA, BUSH, CHENEY, DOD, FBI
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4421.shtml
The war on Wall Street terror
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor
Feb 27, 2009, 00:48
It’s funny that during the run-up to the first War on Terror, Wall Street had such an active hand in exploiting the tragedy of 9/11. Thousands upon thousands of puts short-sold United and American Airlines stocks and WTC-based Morgan Stanley stock plunged; similarly calls (bets to rise) on defense and related stocks sent them soaring on that awful day, the War on Terror’s inciting incident.
....
We’ve come so easily to live with terms like derivates, credit default swaps, subprime lending, toxic mortgages, collateralized debt obligations, all of which we’re told by the OTHER KATHERINE HARRIS add up to some “$1.4 Quadrillion, more money than there is in all the world (at least till Ben Bernanke turned on the printing press lately).” They are lethal in the extreme, created by a shadow market, a criminal market, designed to loot our financial system.
These are instruments of debt created for profit, by a handful of big banksters and credit companies, knowing how harmful they could be to banking, mortgage lending, and any credit institutions. Salesmen for the aforementioned made beaucoup cash on commissions, shoving them downstream to investment banks, securities and bond firms, and watching them collateralized into stocks and bonds, sold into corporate, union, institutional and private portfolios, retirement funds, IRAs, 401Ks, name it.
As with 9/11, these were not demonized Muslims with box-cutters who brought the financial system down like the World Trade Center. These were greedy salesmen, morally-bankrupt brokers, bankers, investment managers who spread the word, as Bernard Madoff did, to profit-anxious clients, friends, religious organizations, schools, foundations, and so on. These were and continue to be the true terrorists, homegrown, heartless, even your neighbor, working in their cells to topple our financial system.
Was it a conspiracy?
If you define that word as a group of people working towards common ends that would harm millions of people, yes, it was a conspiracy....
What’s more amazing is how Congress unknowingly or not paved the way for the last 30 years at least for new improved, more devastating Weapons of Mass Financial Destruction by removing protective legislation, the last being the uptick rule, which Pail Crag Roberts speaks about in How the Economy Was lost.
Wiki tells us, “The uptick rule is a securities trading rule used to regulate short selling in financial markets. The rule mandates, subject to certain exceptions, that, when sold, a listed security must either be sold short at a price above the price at which the immediately preceding sale was effected or at the last sale price if it is higher than the last different price. In 1938, the SEC adopted the uptick rule, more formally known as rule 10a-1, after conducting an inquiry into the effects of concentrated short selling during the market break of 1937. The original rule was implemented by Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., the first SEC commissioner.”
Despite the fact that the uptick rule was a marvelous defense against short selling, which can drive a market down as wildly as those we’ve recently seen, “The SEC eliminated the uptick rule on July 6, 2007. The elimination of the rule was preceded by a SEC order, placed on July 28, 2004, to create a one-year pilot temporarily suspending the uptick rule on select securities.
“The purpose of the suspension was so that the commission could study the effectiveness of the rule. The SEC’s Office of Economic Analysis and academic researchers provided the SEC with analysis of the data obtained during a six-month period starting May 2, 2005. The consensus was against the uptick rule, with the commission concluding that the uptick rule ‘modestly reduce[d] liquidity and do[es] not appear necessary to prevent manipulation . . . ’” So they studied it and killed it.
Yet “The rule was originally put in place to avoid the perpetration of a financial crime known as a bear raid. However, short sellers themselves viewed the rule as ‘largely symbolic’ and having little actual effect on short selling.” What else would short sellers say, “get rid of it, it’s killing us?” Not.
Calls for reinstatement
“On August 27, 2007, the New York Times published an article on Muriel Siebert, former state banking superintendent of New York, “Wall Street veteran and financial sage,” and, in 1967, the first woman to become a member of the New York Stock Exchange. In this article she expressed severe concerns about market volatility: ‘We’ve never seen volatility like this. We’re watching history being made.’ Siebert pointed to the uptick rule, saying, ‘The S.E.C. took away the short-sale rule and when the markets were falling, institutional investors just pounded stocks because they didn’t need an uptick . . . ’
“On the March 20, 2008 episode of Mad Money, Jim Cramer launched his campaign to reinstate the uptick rule. Citing the wild swings of the market since its elimination, Cramer said that the SEC eliminated the rule during a bull market, when liquidity was not a problem. Cramer believes that, without the uptick rule in place, short sellers are devaluing perfectly solid stocks. On the Friday 22, 2008 episode, Jim Cramer further underscored the true scale of the absence of the uptick rule, exclaiming that Obama must “reinstate [the uptick rule], a rule put in place to prevent a repeat of the great crash.
“On September 18, 2008, Republican presidential candidate and Senator John McCain said that the SEC allowed short-selling to turn ‘our markets into a casino.’ Sen. McCain criticized the SEC and its Chairman for eliminating the uptick rule.
“On October 6, 2008, Erik Sirri, director of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Trading and Markets, said that the SEC is considering bringing back the uptick rule, stating, ‘It’s something we have talked about and it may be something that we in fact do.’
“On October 17, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange reported a survey with 85% of its members being in favor of reinstating the uptick rule with the dominant reason to ‘help instill market confidence.’”
As of Thursday, February 26, Jim Cramer’s The Street.Com, quotes him as saying Fed chief Bernanke recently “talked of reinstating the uptick rule, which was put in place after the Great Depression, but recently repealed by former SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. The uptick rule,” Cramer said, “prevents short sellers from relentlessly beating down a stock by requiring an uptick, a moment of strength, before shares can be sold short.” So there’s a ray of hope
Maybe now we can consider repealing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, CFMA, which included “The Enron Loophole,” signed by Bill Clinton in 2000; or reinstating the Glass Steagall Act repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act. The Glass Steagall Act created the kinds of protections we had before Clinton. Both were signed around Christmas when Congress must have been out shopping and two gifts from Santa came down the chimney for the banking and securities industries.
This non-enforcement of laws and protection, too, is also similar to the lead up to 9/11, during which worldwide warnings about a large attack involving hijacked airliners on the US and/or the WTC went unheeded by the FBI and CIA. Those warnings that were heeded and managed to seep through to the White House went unheeded there, as if the highest levels of the administration wanted the tragedy to occur. Could that possibly be? That would make 9/11 another kind of conspiracy, the box-cutter wielding Muslims mere patsies, strings pulled by larger politically elite hands.
The long-range goals of the two conspiracies, at the WTC and nearby Wall Street, had a common objective: to severely harm the United States. In fact, we seemed to glide from 9/11 ever so gracefully via a building and housing bubble into the Wall Street Terror. Could the same hands be at work, attempting to reduce us to a Third World Country, to bankrupt us, to enslave our working classes in poverty, and to make the top 10 percent earners the inheritors of their wealth? Yes they could be.
Who will fight back now?
The current administration seems somewhat bewildered if not in a fog about who gets what bailout or stimulus. Let’s make it simple for them. As much as possible, this money should go directly to benefit the people of the United States, the unemployed, those in danger of losing their homes, those whose savings and investments have been wrecked, those who are hanging by a thread, those who are ill, aging, young and healthy and ready to grow. It shouldn’t be handed out to banks to sit on or give themselves bonuses and jet planes.
So, President Obama, focus beyond your inspiring speech, on the above mentioned and let AIG and the banks crumble in their juices, with no one to blame but themselves for their tumbles, and make some examples by punishing the CitiGroups and Countrywides of the US for their Ignorance, Arrogance and Greed. Save the money for where it’s needed most, as you put it: job creation, energy, education, healthcare, and start reducing, not encouraging, further debt, personal or national.
It can be done. By busting these financial trusts that our sucking the blood money out of the body of the nation to feed themselves like vampires. If not, you will find as Chris Hedges points out in The Economy Sucks and or Collapse 2 that as Admiral Dennis Blair testified before Washington’s new director of national intelligence that a “deepening economic crisis posed perhaps our gravest threat to stability and national security. It could trigger, he said, a return to the’ “violent extremism” of the 1920s and 1930s,’” in simple terms, people in the streets ready to riot, “nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.”
Hungry, abused US citizens could be facing their own armies. It’s already happening in “roughly a quarter of the countries in the world,” this instability, for want of a better word “insurrection.” When people have nothing to lose, the government has a lot to worry about, especially with “an overvalued dollar (which will soon deflate) . . .” This is real, beyond speechifying. When the financial crisis becomes a currency crisis, you will have an utterly combustible situation.
One must rethink whether we wish to continue being an Imperial force rather than a democratic nation; whether to shore up our assets, the strength of our people and resources, or keep borrowing ourselves into oblivion to support an Empire. If we pursue the latter, we’ll go the way of all empires, from the Soviets back to Great Briton, to the Ottomans and the Romans. Tell that to those who would advise you. Remind them of history. Of the French Revolution, bloody as it was. The people can be driven back so far. Then like compressed gas, they suddenly explode. Roosevelt saw this and acted, swiftly and righteously, to avoid a civil catastrophe.
As Hedges says, “The principle failures of our elites is their inability to recognize an actively organized pool of disinterest called the public good . . . Our elites -- the ones in Congress, the ones on Wall Street and the ones being produced at prestigious universities and business schools -- do not have the capacity to fix our financial system . . . The democratic system, they think, is a secondary product of the free market. And they slavishly serve the market.”
You, President Obama, are the leader of all the people, top to bottom. Serve them well. As Hedges tells us, “If we do not become angry. If we do not muster within us the courage to confront the corporate state that is destroying our nation, to actively defy entrenched power, we will have squandered our credibility and integrity at the moment we need it most.” And we would give, I might add, the victory to the financial terrorists within.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. read his new book, “State Of Shock: Poems from 9/11 on” at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon or Barnesandnoble.com.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
The war on Wall Street terror
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor
Feb 27, 2009, 00:48
It’s funny that during the run-up to the first War on Terror, Wall Street had such an active hand in exploiting the tragedy of 9/11. Thousands upon thousands of puts short-sold United and American Airlines stocks and WTC-based Morgan Stanley stock plunged; similarly calls (bets to rise) on defense and related stocks sent them soaring on that awful day, the War on Terror’s inciting incident.
....
We’ve come so easily to live with terms like derivates, credit default swaps, subprime lending, toxic mortgages, collateralized debt obligations, all of which we’re told by the OTHER KATHERINE HARRIS add up to some “$1.4 Quadrillion, more money than there is in all the world (at least till Ben Bernanke turned on the printing press lately).” They are lethal in the extreme, created by a shadow market, a criminal market, designed to loot our financial system.
These are instruments of debt created for profit, by a handful of big banksters and credit companies, knowing how harmful they could be to banking, mortgage lending, and any credit institutions. Salesmen for the aforementioned made beaucoup cash on commissions, shoving them downstream to investment banks, securities and bond firms, and watching them collateralized into stocks and bonds, sold into corporate, union, institutional and private portfolios, retirement funds, IRAs, 401Ks, name it.
As with 9/11, these were not demonized Muslims with box-cutters who brought the financial system down like the World Trade Center. These were greedy salesmen, morally-bankrupt brokers, bankers, investment managers who spread the word, as Bernard Madoff did, to profit-anxious clients, friends, religious organizations, schools, foundations, and so on. These were and continue to be the true terrorists, homegrown, heartless, even your neighbor, working in their cells to topple our financial system.
Was it a conspiracy?
If you define that word as a group of people working towards common ends that would harm millions of people, yes, it was a conspiracy....
What’s more amazing is how Congress unknowingly or not paved the way for the last 30 years at least for new improved, more devastating Weapons of Mass Financial Destruction by removing protective legislation, the last being the uptick rule, which Pail Crag Roberts speaks about in How the Economy Was lost.
Wiki tells us, “The uptick rule is a securities trading rule used to regulate short selling in financial markets. The rule mandates, subject to certain exceptions, that, when sold, a listed security must either be sold short at a price above the price at which the immediately preceding sale was effected or at the last sale price if it is higher than the last different price. In 1938, the SEC adopted the uptick rule, more formally known as rule 10a-1, after conducting an inquiry into the effects of concentrated short selling during the market break of 1937. The original rule was implemented by Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., the first SEC commissioner.”
Despite the fact that the uptick rule was a marvelous defense against short selling, which can drive a market down as wildly as those we’ve recently seen, “The SEC eliminated the uptick rule on July 6, 2007. The elimination of the rule was preceded by a SEC order, placed on July 28, 2004, to create a one-year pilot temporarily suspending the uptick rule on select securities.
“The purpose of the suspension was so that the commission could study the effectiveness of the rule. The SEC’s Office of Economic Analysis and academic researchers provided the SEC with analysis of the data obtained during a six-month period starting May 2, 2005. The consensus was against the uptick rule, with the commission concluding that the uptick rule ‘modestly reduce[d] liquidity and do[es] not appear necessary to prevent manipulation . . . ’” So they studied it and killed it.
Yet “The rule was originally put in place to avoid the perpetration of a financial crime known as a bear raid. However, short sellers themselves viewed the rule as ‘largely symbolic’ and having little actual effect on short selling.” What else would short sellers say, “get rid of it, it’s killing us?” Not.
Calls for reinstatement
“On August 27, 2007, the New York Times published an article on Muriel Siebert, former state banking superintendent of New York, “Wall Street veteran and financial sage,” and, in 1967, the first woman to become a member of the New York Stock Exchange. In this article she expressed severe concerns about market volatility: ‘We’ve never seen volatility like this. We’re watching history being made.’ Siebert pointed to the uptick rule, saying, ‘The S.E.C. took away the short-sale rule and when the markets were falling, institutional investors just pounded stocks because they didn’t need an uptick . . . ’
“On the March 20, 2008 episode of Mad Money, Jim Cramer launched his campaign to reinstate the uptick rule. Citing the wild swings of the market since its elimination, Cramer said that the SEC eliminated the rule during a bull market, when liquidity was not a problem. Cramer believes that, without the uptick rule in place, short sellers are devaluing perfectly solid stocks. On the Friday 22, 2008 episode, Jim Cramer further underscored the true scale of the absence of the uptick rule, exclaiming that Obama must “reinstate [the uptick rule], a rule put in place to prevent a repeat of the great crash.
“On September 18, 2008, Republican presidential candidate and Senator John McCain said that the SEC allowed short-selling to turn ‘our markets into a casino.’ Sen. McCain criticized the SEC and its Chairman for eliminating the uptick rule.
“On October 6, 2008, Erik Sirri, director of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Trading and Markets, said that the SEC is considering bringing back the uptick rule, stating, ‘It’s something we have talked about and it may be something that we in fact do.’
“On October 17, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange reported a survey with 85% of its members being in favor of reinstating the uptick rule with the dominant reason to ‘help instill market confidence.’”
As of Thursday, February 26, Jim Cramer’s The Street.Com, quotes him as saying Fed chief Bernanke recently “talked of reinstating the uptick rule, which was put in place after the Great Depression, but recently repealed by former SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. The uptick rule,” Cramer said, “prevents short sellers from relentlessly beating down a stock by requiring an uptick, a moment of strength, before shares can be sold short.” So there’s a ray of hope
Maybe now we can consider repealing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, CFMA, which included “The Enron Loophole,” signed by Bill Clinton in 2000; or reinstating the Glass Steagall Act repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act. The Glass Steagall Act created the kinds of protections we had before Clinton. Both were signed around Christmas when Congress must have been out shopping and two gifts from Santa came down the chimney for the banking and securities industries.
This non-enforcement of laws and protection, too, is also similar to the lead up to 9/11, during which worldwide warnings about a large attack involving hijacked airliners on the US and/or the WTC went unheeded by the FBI and CIA. Those warnings that were heeded and managed to seep through to the White House went unheeded there, as if the highest levels of the administration wanted the tragedy to occur. Could that possibly be? That would make 9/11 another kind of conspiracy, the box-cutter wielding Muslims mere patsies, strings pulled by larger politically elite hands.
The long-range goals of the two conspiracies, at the WTC and nearby Wall Street, had a common objective: to severely harm the United States. In fact, we seemed to glide from 9/11 ever so gracefully via a building and housing bubble into the Wall Street Terror. Could the same hands be at work, attempting to reduce us to a Third World Country, to bankrupt us, to enslave our working classes in poverty, and to make the top 10 percent earners the inheritors of their wealth? Yes they could be.
Who will fight back now?
The current administration seems somewhat bewildered if not in a fog about who gets what bailout or stimulus. Let’s make it simple for them. As much as possible, this money should go directly to benefit the people of the United States, the unemployed, those in danger of losing their homes, those whose savings and investments have been wrecked, those who are hanging by a thread, those who are ill, aging, young and healthy and ready to grow. It shouldn’t be handed out to banks to sit on or give themselves bonuses and jet planes.
So, President Obama, focus beyond your inspiring speech, on the above mentioned and let AIG and the banks crumble in their juices, with no one to blame but themselves for their tumbles, and make some examples by punishing the CitiGroups and Countrywides of the US for their Ignorance, Arrogance and Greed. Save the money for where it’s needed most, as you put it: job creation, energy, education, healthcare, and start reducing, not encouraging, further debt, personal or national.
It can be done. By busting these financial trusts that our sucking the blood money out of the body of the nation to feed themselves like vampires. If not, you will find as Chris Hedges points out in The Economy Sucks and or Collapse 2 that as Admiral Dennis Blair testified before Washington’s new director of national intelligence that a “deepening economic crisis posed perhaps our gravest threat to stability and national security. It could trigger, he said, a return to the’ “violent extremism” of the 1920s and 1930s,’” in simple terms, people in the streets ready to riot, “nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.”
Hungry, abused US citizens could be facing their own armies. It’s already happening in “roughly a quarter of the countries in the world,” this instability, for want of a better word “insurrection.” When people have nothing to lose, the government has a lot to worry about, especially with “an overvalued dollar (which will soon deflate) . . .” This is real, beyond speechifying. When the financial crisis becomes a currency crisis, you will have an utterly combustible situation.
One must rethink whether we wish to continue being an Imperial force rather than a democratic nation; whether to shore up our assets, the strength of our people and resources, or keep borrowing ourselves into oblivion to support an Empire. If we pursue the latter, we’ll go the way of all empires, from the Soviets back to Great Briton, to the Ottomans and the Romans. Tell that to those who would advise you. Remind them of history. Of the French Revolution, bloody as it was. The people can be driven back so far. Then like compressed gas, they suddenly explode. Roosevelt saw this and acted, swiftly and righteously, to avoid a civil catastrophe.
As Hedges says, “The principle failures of our elites is their inability to recognize an actively organized pool of disinterest called the public good . . . Our elites -- the ones in Congress, the ones on Wall Street and the ones being produced at prestigious universities and business schools -- do not have the capacity to fix our financial system . . . The democratic system, they think, is a secondary product of the free market. And they slavishly serve the market.”
You, President Obama, are the leader of all the people, top to bottom. Serve them well. As Hedges tells us, “If we do not become angry. If we do not muster within us the courage to confront the corporate state that is destroying our nation, to actively defy entrenched power, we will have squandered our credibility and integrity at the moment we need it most.” And we would give, I might add, the victory to the financial terrorists within.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. read his new book, “State Of Shock: Poems from 9/11 on” at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon or Barnesandnoble.com.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
REPUBLICAN PARTY FRAUD: nothing new under OBAMA--HOLDER....no charges...no punishment...NUKES TO KOREA, and no charges from ERIC HOLDER?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_go_ot/banned_contractors
WASHINGTON – Companies that defrauded the United States and jeopardized American lives received new government work despite rulings designed to stop them from receiving federal contracts, government investigators report.
Payments went to a company whose president tried to sell nuclear bomb parts to North Korea, a company that jeopardized lives on the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy, and a seller of body armor that the Air Force said was defective.
The companies were on a government database of 70,000 individuals and businesses suspended or barred by various U.S. agencies from receiving government contract work.
The Government Accountability Office blamed some of the mistakes on faulty computer searches by officials who left out commas or periods. But it also said the search engine for the database often failed to identify any of the entries on the exclusion list.
A hypothetical suspended company named XYZ Corp., Inc. — with a comma — would escape detection if one searched for XYZ Corp. Inc. — without the comma — the report said.
The investigators found a staggering list of offenses by companies awarded new contracts. They included use of fictitious Social Security numbers, massive tax fraud, delivery of faulty parts for the military, false filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, use of insider information to bid on federal contracts, and Medicare fraud.
Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, asked in a hearing Thursday, "What is the point of having suspension and debarment regulations if our own agencies disregard them?"
Most contracts were awarded to excluded companies by mistake. However, the Army deliberately continued a contract with a German company, Optronic GmbH, whose president was convicted in Germany for attempting to illegally ship dual aluminum tubes to North Korea. The equipment can be used in the development of nuclear bombs.
The Army paid the company $31 million under the contract, including $4 million after it was placed on the exclusion list. The firm supplied civilians for training exercises for 7,000 U.S. troops prior to their deployment to Iraq.
In ruling that the company should not receive new contracts, the Army stated in July 2005 that the gravity of the conduct was clear, given that 37,000 U.S. forces were stationed on South Korean soil.
An Army official, in an interview, said the payments continued because the convicted president was removed from the company and the firm did an excellent job in its crucial role in the training exercises.
Edward Harrington, deputy assistant secretary for procurement, said stopping the contract early would have jeopardized the two brigades that needed the civilians in their battlefield exercises.
Other examples cited by the GAO, Congress' investigative arm:
_The Navy suspended Tecnico Corp. of Chesapeake, Va., in April 2006, after discovering the company was using faulty fasteners on steam pipes on the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy. A rupture could have caused lethal burns.
A Tecnico Corp. vice president, Richard Freeman, declined to comment.
_GAO officials, in their own test, purchased body armor worth more than $3,000 from Pinnacle Armor of Fresno, Calif. The company was placed on the exclusion list in September 2007 by the Air Force, which concluded that the firm represented its body armor was tested and effective, when the equipment actually failed to meet requirements.
Several attempts to reach the company were unsuccessful because the company mailbox was full.
_Steven Industries of Bayonne, N.J., was banned in May 2007 after the GAO said it conspired to defraud the government by placing false labels on chemicals.
Bill Rubenstein, president of Steven Industries, said the payments from the government after the company was barred were for contracts that existed at the time.
Gregory Kutz, the GAO official who presented the findings, said the payments were for new orders under existing contracts and should not have been approved under the exclusion.
_Chemco Industries, a cleaning supply company, was suspended in March 2007 — three years after its conviction for illegally discharging chemicals into the St. Louis sewer system. Officials in the Veterans Affairs Department never checked the exclusion list and ordered new cleaning supplies.
Company owner Kamal Yadav said the firm didn't receive new business during its ban. The government "started buying again after we got reinstated," he said.
The GAO disputed that, saying the company was suspended March 7, 2007, and the new order was placed by the VA on Aug. 8, 2007.
WASHINGTON – Companies that defrauded the United States and jeopardized American lives received new government work despite rulings designed to stop them from receiving federal contracts, government investigators report.
Payments went to a company whose president tried to sell nuclear bomb parts to North Korea, a company that jeopardized lives on the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy, and a seller of body armor that the Air Force said was defective.
The companies were on a government database of 70,000 individuals and businesses suspended or barred by various U.S. agencies from receiving government contract work.
The Government Accountability Office blamed some of the mistakes on faulty computer searches by officials who left out commas or periods. But it also said the search engine for the database often failed to identify any of the entries on the exclusion list.
A hypothetical suspended company named XYZ Corp., Inc. — with a comma — would escape detection if one searched for XYZ Corp. Inc. — without the comma — the report said.
The investigators found a staggering list of offenses by companies awarded new contracts. They included use of fictitious Social Security numbers, massive tax fraud, delivery of faulty parts for the military, false filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, use of insider information to bid on federal contracts, and Medicare fraud.
Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, asked in a hearing Thursday, "What is the point of having suspension and debarment regulations if our own agencies disregard them?"
Most contracts were awarded to excluded companies by mistake. However, the Army deliberately continued a contract with a German company, Optronic GmbH, whose president was convicted in Germany for attempting to illegally ship dual aluminum tubes to North Korea. The equipment can be used in the development of nuclear bombs.
The Army paid the company $31 million under the contract, including $4 million after it was placed on the exclusion list. The firm supplied civilians for training exercises for 7,000 U.S. troops prior to their deployment to Iraq.
In ruling that the company should not receive new contracts, the Army stated in July 2005 that the gravity of the conduct was clear, given that 37,000 U.S. forces were stationed on South Korean soil.
An Army official, in an interview, said the payments continued because the convicted president was removed from the company and the firm did an excellent job in its crucial role in the training exercises.
Edward Harrington, deputy assistant secretary for procurement, said stopping the contract early would have jeopardized the two brigades that needed the civilians in their battlefield exercises.
Other examples cited by the GAO, Congress' investigative arm:
_The Navy suspended Tecnico Corp. of Chesapeake, Va., in April 2006, after discovering the company was using faulty fasteners on steam pipes on the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy. A rupture could have caused lethal burns.
A Tecnico Corp. vice president, Richard Freeman, declined to comment.
_GAO officials, in their own test, purchased body armor worth more than $3,000 from Pinnacle Armor of Fresno, Calif. The company was placed on the exclusion list in September 2007 by the Air Force, which concluded that the firm represented its body armor was tested and effective, when the equipment actually failed to meet requirements.
Several attempts to reach the company were unsuccessful because the company mailbox was full.
_Steven Industries of Bayonne, N.J., was banned in May 2007 after the GAO said it conspired to defraud the government by placing false labels on chemicals.
Bill Rubenstein, president of Steven Industries, said the payments from the government after the company was barred were for contracts that existed at the time.
Gregory Kutz, the GAO official who presented the findings, said the payments were for new orders under existing contracts and should not have been approved under the exclusion.
_Chemco Industries, a cleaning supply company, was suspended in March 2007 — three years after its conviction for illegally discharging chemicals into the St. Louis sewer system. Officials in the Veterans Affairs Department never checked the exclusion list and ordered new cleaning supplies.
Company owner Kamal Yadav said the firm didn't receive new business during its ban. The government "started buying again after we got reinstated," he said.
The GAO disputed that, saying the company was suspended March 7, 2007, and the new order was placed by the VA on Aug. 8, 2007.
STANFORD...CHAVEZ...CIA...AIG MOSSAD KIKES...BAILOUT THEFT...AND CIA ASSASINATION OF CHAVEZ IN VENEZUELA?
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/lifestyle/texan-cricket-tycoon-stanford-at-centre-of-venezuelan-spying-row_100117232.html
London, Nov.10 (ANI): Texan billionaire Allen Stanford is in the middle of an international spying row.
Stanford, who is the man behind the controversial 12 million pound winner-takes-all tournament that was recently held in Antigua, West Indies, has been caught out by Venezuelan military intelligence officials after a raid on a branch of one his offshore banks that revealed that its employees were paid by the CIA to spy on Venezuela. According to The Telegraph, officials spent three hours searching files and documents at the Stanford International Banks” offices in Venezuelan capital Caracas, removing several of them for closer inspection.
The controversy will raise further questions about Sir Allen’’s involvement with English cricket, which many see as damaging to the game’’s reputation.
The English Cricket Board has signed a 100 million dollar five year deal with the Texan, allowing him to stage another four Twenty20 tournaments - in which the winning players are paid one million dollars and the losers walk away with nothing.(ANI)
_____________________________________________________
http://sutherlandsalute.blogspot.com/2009/02/does-obama-know-what-cia-is-doing-to.html
Venezuela Arrests Soldiers Over Alleged Army Plot, Chavez Says
By Matthew Walter
Feb. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said soldiers suspected of conspiring in a plot to destabilize the government were arrested, adding the situation is under control.
Chavez, a self-proclaimed socialist who has accused the political opposition of trying to overthrow his government since he survived a brief coup in 2002, said the country’s intelligence agency uncovered a plan to infiltrate the Miraflores presidential palace. He made the comments yesterday on state television.
“We’ve arrested some soldiers, and they remain detained, who were in contact with a solder on the run in the U.S., protected by the U.S. government, sending messages about a so- called Operation Independence,” Chavez said.
The Venezuelan president is wrapping up a political campaign to amend the constitution to allow him to seek re-election as many times as he likes. The issue will go before voters on Feb. 15 and Chavez has said the political opposition has been planning violence in the country should it lose the election.
Venezuela is the biggest oil exporter in the Western Hemisphere and the fourth-biggest overseas supplier of the commodity to the U.S.
“We have the situation under control,” he said. “The country should be at peace.”
The government recovered rocket launchers and explosives that were part of the plot, Chavez said.
The president last September said there was a plot within the Venezuelan military to assassinate him and carry out a coup at the start of campaigns for state and city elections.
A poll by Caracas-based Datanalisis shows Venezuelans are evenly split before this weekend’s vote. In a January survey, 51.5 percent supported the amendment, while 48.1 percent were opposed. The survey of 1,300 people had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.72 percentage points.
Chavez said any plot to overthrow him will be defeated.
“The Venezuelan bourgeoisie will regret it,” he said. “The conspirators against the government will regret their campaign of aggression, of violence.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Walter in Caracas at mwalter4@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: February 12, 2009 01:51 EST
_____________________________________________________
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-assassination-of-hugo-chavez/
The Assassination of Hugo Chavez
by Greg Palast
Reporting from Lago Agrio, Ecuador
Wednesday November 14
Before The Lord spoke unto Pat Robertson and told him to endorse Rudy Giuliani, family man, for President, the Reverend got a message that higher powers wanted him to arrange a hit on another President:
"Hugo Chavez thinks we're trying to assassinate him. I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
Robertson has a tough time separating Church and Hate. But when the vicious vicar declared it was time to take out the President of Venezuela, he was simply channeling the wishes of the Supreme Authority, Dick Cheney.
I'm asking you to see the story they don't want you to see in the USA: from the original investigations filmed for BBC Television, "The Assassination of Hugo"- a special DVD documentary by myself and Rick Rowley. NOT for general release - ONLY available as a gift to donors to the not-for-profit Palast Investigative Fund. Check out the trailer for the film here.
Why must they kill Chavez?
With the help of guerrila cameraman Rick Rowley ("Fourth World War"), I flew to Caracas to get the answer - from Chavez himself. I also talked to the guy who took Chavez hostage in 2002. (I had to wear a wire for that one.)
The answer is right underneath Chavez' feet. Oil. How much? According to the inside documents that fell into my hands from the Department of Energy - LOTS of oil, five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.
The DVD includes Chavez himself, in our extended exclusive interviews. We go over the Bush plans - for his oil, and for his "elimination." Sing along with the crooning champion of the poor - or, as George Bush titles him, "a demagogue awash with oil money."
______________________________________________________________________
NOTE COPY AND PASTE URL BELOW TO GET LINKS AT THIS BLOG:
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2009/02/aig-stanford-group-and-israel-cozy-as.html
AIG, The Stanford Group and Israel; Cozy as Bedbugs
Wall Street loses trillions of dollars, mostly from elderly stockholders and pension funds and no one seems to know where all that loot disappeared to?
It didn't evaporate, but it sure as hell is gone. Some reports put the money stolen--missing from banks and accounts around the world at over 20 TRILLION dollars.
Where has all of that money in those 401K accounts and pension funds got off to?
Welcome to IDC Herzliya held each year in Israel.
"The Herzliya Conference is Israel‘s primary global policy annual gathering, drawing together Israeli and international participants from the highest levels of government, business, and academia to address pressing national, regional and world strategic issues."
Heavy emphasis on business, especially Wall Street banks.
"Sir" Allen and the Stanford Group
Another investment fund, the Stanford Group goes "Uh-Oh", billions of dollars disappear and who's to blame?
Maybe you should look at the recent Ninth Annual Herzliya Conference held in Israel, February 2-4, 2009 and attended by members of the Stanford Group.
Yes, that Stanford Group that seems to have lost at least 8 BILLION dollars of investors money.
The World Economic Crisis: Recalibrating Financial Risk, Management and Regulation
Ms. Joanne Thornton Senior Vice President, Policy Research, Stanford Group Company
The Stanford Group went belly up and defrauded investors of billions of dollars. Who's behind this monkey business?
Reading their list of employees is like reading a Bar Mitzvah guest list. Wonder if the luggage Joanne took to Israel for the 2009 conference was extra heavy, because a little over one week later, the SEC shed its blinders and started looking into his fund, AFTER the 8 BILLION mysteriously disappeared.
Had to give "Sir" Allen time and his fellow brigands time to get the plunder to the Kosher Nostra.
What other American financial company that lost billions and billions of investors money and is now being funded by the American taxpayer to the tune of over 200 billion was in Israel at this conference?
Answer?: AIG
Prof. Jacob Frenkel Former Governor: Bank of Israel, Chairman, Group of Thirty (G-30); Vice Chairman, American International Group (AIG)
Not only is "Uncle Yakob" with AIG, he previously was with the now defunct Merril Lynch . Amazing set of coincidences.
Herzliya could mean "Take the Money in Run" in Yiddish, but is named after the Godfather of Zionism, Theodore Herzl.
Amazing.
Yes, simply amazing.
Wonder where all that money that disappeared from Wall Street 401K accounts and retirement fund went to?
Any guesses?
The only one missing from this "Swindler's List," is Bernie Madoff. But Bernie had already spirited much of the 50-100 BILLION in stolen loot back to the Mother Ship.
Besides hauling the loot to Israel, Bernie found time to spend some of that money on luxury homes, like the ones shown here.
An Aerial Tour of the Homes of Bernie Madoff and the Bailed-Out Bankers
Think any of that plunder made it back to the USA and into the pockets of our corrupt Congress?
Or maybe this is the "Clean Break: Securing the Realm" scenario talked about where Israel gets some type of outside money to permanently prop up that racist and apartheid, Jews only state.
A document written by some of the same thugs that lied the US into the Iraq War.
Thugs like, David Wurmser, Doug Feith and Richard Perle.
The Clean Break document here, says that "...[financial] self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past."
20 TRILLION dollars would keep Israel on its war mongering path for decades to come.
Labels: Corruption
London, Nov.10 (ANI): Texan billionaire Allen Stanford is in the middle of an international spying row.
Stanford, who is the man behind the controversial 12 million pound winner-takes-all tournament that was recently held in Antigua, West Indies, has been caught out by Venezuelan military intelligence officials after a raid on a branch of one his offshore banks that revealed that its employees were paid by the CIA to spy on Venezuela. According to The Telegraph, officials spent three hours searching files and documents at the Stanford International Banks” offices in Venezuelan capital Caracas, removing several of them for closer inspection.
The controversy will raise further questions about Sir Allen’’s involvement with English cricket, which many see as damaging to the game’’s reputation.
The English Cricket Board has signed a 100 million dollar five year deal with the Texan, allowing him to stage another four Twenty20 tournaments - in which the winning players are paid one million dollars and the losers walk away with nothing.(ANI)
_____________________________________________________
http://sutherlandsalute.blogspot.com/2009/02/does-obama-know-what-cia-is-doing-to.html
Venezuela Arrests Soldiers Over Alleged Army Plot, Chavez Says
By Matthew Walter
Feb. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said soldiers suspected of conspiring in a plot to destabilize the government were arrested, adding the situation is under control.
Chavez, a self-proclaimed socialist who has accused the political opposition of trying to overthrow his government since he survived a brief coup in 2002, said the country’s intelligence agency uncovered a plan to infiltrate the Miraflores presidential palace. He made the comments yesterday on state television.
“We’ve arrested some soldiers, and they remain detained, who were in contact with a solder on the run in the U.S., protected by the U.S. government, sending messages about a so- called Operation Independence,” Chavez said.
The Venezuelan president is wrapping up a political campaign to amend the constitution to allow him to seek re-election as many times as he likes. The issue will go before voters on Feb. 15 and Chavez has said the political opposition has been planning violence in the country should it lose the election.
Venezuela is the biggest oil exporter in the Western Hemisphere and the fourth-biggest overseas supplier of the commodity to the U.S.
“We have the situation under control,” he said. “The country should be at peace.”
The government recovered rocket launchers and explosives that were part of the plot, Chavez said.
The president last September said there was a plot within the Venezuelan military to assassinate him and carry out a coup at the start of campaigns for state and city elections.
A poll by Caracas-based Datanalisis shows Venezuelans are evenly split before this weekend’s vote. In a January survey, 51.5 percent supported the amendment, while 48.1 percent were opposed. The survey of 1,300 people had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.72 percentage points.
Chavez said any plot to overthrow him will be defeated.
“The Venezuelan bourgeoisie will regret it,” he said. “The conspirators against the government will regret their campaign of aggression, of violence.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Walter in Caracas at mwalter4@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: February 12, 2009 01:51 EST
_____________________________________________________
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-assassination-of-hugo-chavez/
The Assassination of Hugo Chavez
by Greg Palast
Reporting from Lago Agrio, Ecuador
Wednesday November 14
Before The Lord spoke unto Pat Robertson and told him to endorse Rudy Giuliani, family man, for President, the Reverend got a message that higher powers wanted him to arrange a hit on another President:
"Hugo Chavez thinks we're trying to assassinate him. I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
Robertson has a tough time separating Church and Hate. But when the vicious vicar declared it was time to take out the President of Venezuela, he was simply channeling the wishes of the Supreme Authority, Dick Cheney.
I'm asking you to see the story they don't want you to see in the USA: from the original investigations filmed for BBC Television, "The Assassination of Hugo"- a special DVD documentary by myself and Rick Rowley. NOT for general release - ONLY available as a gift to donors to the not-for-profit Palast Investigative Fund. Check out the trailer for the film here.
Why must they kill Chavez?
With the help of guerrila cameraman Rick Rowley ("Fourth World War"), I flew to Caracas to get the answer - from Chavez himself. I also talked to the guy who took Chavez hostage in 2002. (I had to wear a wire for that one.)
The answer is right underneath Chavez' feet. Oil. How much? According to the inside documents that fell into my hands from the Department of Energy - LOTS of oil, five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.
The DVD includes Chavez himself, in our extended exclusive interviews. We go over the Bush plans - for his oil, and for his "elimination." Sing along with the crooning champion of the poor - or, as George Bush titles him, "a demagogue awash with oil money."
______________________________________________________________________
NOTE COPY AND PASTE URL BELOW TO GET LINKS AT THIS BLOG:
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2009/02/aig-stanford-group-and-israel-cozy-as.html
AIG, The Stanford Group and Israel; Cozy as Bedbugs
Wall Street loses trillions of dollars, mostly from elderly stockholders and pension funds and no one seems to know where all that loot disappeared to?
It didn't evaporate, but it sure as hell is gone. Some reports put the money stolen--missing from banks and accounts around the world at over 20 TRILLION dollars.
Where has all of that money in those 401K accounts and pension funds got off to?
Welcome to IDC Herzliya held each year in Israel.
"The Herzliya Conference is Israel‘s primary global policy annual gathering, drawing together Israeli and international participants from the highest levels of government, business, and academia to address pressing national, regional and world strategic issues."
Heavy emphasis on business, especially Wall Street banks.
"Sir" Allen and the Stanford Group
Another investment fund, the Stanford Group goes "Uh-Oh", billions of dollars disappear and who's to blame?
Maybe you should look at the recent Ninth Annual Herzliya Conference held in Israel, February 2-4, 2009 and attended by members of the Stanford Group.
Yes, that Stanford Group that seems to have lost at least 8 BILLION dollars of investors money.
The World Economic Crisis: Recalibrating Financial Risk, Management and Regulation
Ms. Joanne Thornton Senior Vice President, Policy Research, Stanford Group Company
The Stanford Group went belly up and defrauded investors of billions of dollars. Who's behind this monkey business?
Reading their list of employees is like reading a Bar Mitzvah guest list. Wonder if the luggage Joanne took to Israel for the 2009 conference was extra heavy, because a little over one week later, the SEC shed its blinders and started looking into his fund, AFTER the 8 BILLION mysteriously disappeared.
Had to give "Sir" Allen time and his fellow brigands time to get the plunder to the Kosher Nostra.
What other American financial company that lost billions and billions of investors money and is now being funded by the American taxpayer to the tune of over 200 billion was in Israel at this conference?
Answer?: AIG
Prof. Jacob Frenkel Former Governor: Bank of Israel, Chairman, Group of Thirty (G-30); Vice Chairman, American International Group (AIG)
Not only is "Uncle Yakob" with AIG, he previously was with the now defunct Merril Lynch . Amazing set of coincidences.
Herzliya could mean "Take the Money in Run" in Yiddish, but is named after the Godfather of Zionism, Theodore Herzl.
Amazing.
Yes, simply amazing.
Wonder where all that money that disappeared from Wall Street 401K accounts and retirement fund went to?
Any guesses?
The only one missing from this "Swindler's List," is Bernie Madoff. But Bernie had already spirited much of the 50-100 BILLION in stolen loot back to the Mother Ship.
Besides hauling the loot to Israel, Bernie found time to spend some of that money on luxury homes, like the ones shown here.
An Aerial Tour of the Homes of Bernie Madoff and the Bailed-Out Bankers
Think any of that plunder made it back to the USA and into the pockets of our corrupt Congress?
Or maybe this is the "Clean Break: Securing the Realm" scenario talked about where Israel gets some type of outside money to permanently prop up that racist and apartheid, Jews only state.
A document written by some of the same thugs that lied the US into the Iraq War.
Thugs like, David Wurmser, Doug Feith and Richard Perle.
The Clean Break document here, says that "...[financial] self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past."
20 TRILLION dollars would keep Israel on its war mongering path for decades to come.
Labels: Corruption
MORE PROOF THAT OBAMA--HOLDER have lied to America about change: HOW COME HOLDER HAS NOT FIRED SUTTON/ROOMBERG at W.D.Tex US ATTY?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/prosecutor-claims-irancontra-whistleblower-is-a-%e2%80%9cdanger%e2%80%9d-to-society.html
Prosecutor claims Iran/Contra whistleblower is a “danger” to society
Bill Conroy
Narco News
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Iran/Contra whistleblower Celerino “Cele” Castillo III was scheduled to report to prison on March 5, but the power of justice has intervened on his behalf.
A federal judge in San Antonio, at a hearing held late last week, ruled that Castillo’s report date to prison should be extended until July 20. The judge, W. Royal Furgeson Jr., issued his ruling over the objections of a federal prosecutor, who argued that Castillo should be sent to prison because he was a “danger to the community.”
The hearing was called by the judge to consider a motion to allow Castillo to remain free on bail through his appeal. The motion was filed by Castillo’s current attorney, public defender Judy Fulmer Madewell.
“One of the government’s arguments [made by the U.S. prosecutor, Mark T. Roomberg] as to why my client is a danger to the community is that he put an outrageous and erratic posting on his Web site,” Fulmer Madewell told the judge at the Feb. 19 hearing in federal court in San Antonio. “That story was actually written by someone else … so it was not an outrageous post by the defendant.”
In fact, Narco News originally published that story (U.S. government finally exacts revenge on Iran/Contra whistleblower Cele Castillo). The article raises serious questions about whether Castillo’s prosecution was politically motivated.
Castillo was convicted late last year on federal charges of dealing firearms without a license in a case marked by numerous irregularities and peculiar coincidences that raise the specter of a frame-up.
For example, Castillo was being represented by a lawyer who was in the process of having his bar license suspended for misappropriating his clients’ funds. In fact, that attorney, Robert “Eddie” De La Garza, was aware on Oct. 17, 2008, (five days before Castillo’s sentencing date on Oct. 22) that his Texas law license was being suspended effective Nov. 1, 2008.
On top of that, this same lawyer’s son was facing serious gun charges in another federal court in Texas at the same time he was representing Castillo.
De La Garza’s son, Andrew, in February 2007 was indicted on weapons charges as the result of an ATF investigation in McAllen, Texas — near the Mexican border and the same city where the same federal law enforcement agency worked to make the case against Castillo.
According to evidenced submitted to the court by Fulmer Madewell, one of the ATF agents involved in the case made against De La Garza’s son also was involved in Castillo’s case.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Andrew De La Garza was charged with making a false statement to a firearms dealer during the acquisition of a gun and possessing a firearm with an obliterated ID and was facing a potential 15-year prison stint. That case is still playing out in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Castillo’s case is being heard in the Western District of Texas — prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for that district, led by Johnny Sutton.
De La Garza’s kid was offered a plea deal on May 2, 2008, a couple weeks after his father took on Castillo’s case. The prosecutor in the son’s case agreed to drop one count “at the time of sentencing” and agreed to recommend a decrease in the offense level on the other count — a good deal that promised to substantially reduce the potential prison sentence. But that deal is still subject to the judge’s discretion at the time of sentencing.
Added to that coincidence of events is the fact that sentencing dates in the case involving De la Garza’s son have been postponed several times -— each time to move the date back past a crucial court date in Castillo’s case. (The latest postponement pushed the kid’s sentencing date back to late March, after Castillo’s original March 5 prison-report date.)
Those facts on there own create a huge conflict of interest for De La Garza in handling Castillo’s case, given that both his law-license woes and the charges facing his son would have made it extremely difficult for him to provide a vigorous defense for Castillo. In the back of his mind, the attorney had to worry about his future, and that of his son’s, should he run afoul of the prosecutor in Castillo’s case, according to attorneys and law enforcers who spoke with Narco News.
Fulmer Madewell raised the issue of De La Garza’s conflict of interest in the hearing held last week (on Feb. 19) at the John H. Wood Jr. U.S. Courthouse Building in San Antonio. Fulmer Madewell told the judge that she was in the process of preparing briefs for Castillo’s appeal that likely would include a claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel.”
“We already have sufficient public evidence in this case to bring it up now,” Fulmer Madewell said. “… In this case, the defendant’s attorney [De La Garza] failed to notify the court and the client of the conflict of interest and the ramifications of that conflict. … He should have told the court about the conflict so that the court had a chance to address it. … If the [appeals] court finds there was ineffective assistance of counsel in this case, it is likely to consider remanding the case [back to Judge Furgeson’s court] for further inquiry to determine what would have happened had the court known of these conflicts.”
Roomberg dismissed that argument.
“The defense wants us to speculate and believe that the U.S. Attorney’s Office … cut some deal with the defendant’s attorney [De La Garza] to throw the case [Castillo’s case]. That’s ridiculous,” he told the judge at the Feb. 19 hearing. “They [the defense] have not demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel and have not alleged prejudice that rises to the level of a constitutional issue that might result in a new trial or reversal.”
Roomberg also told the judge, without specifying what evidence existed to back up the claim, that two of the “cop killer” guns allegedly sold by Castillo have since been found in Mexico — with the unspoken implication that they were sold to narco-traffickers.
However, Fulmer Madewell pointed out to the judge that one of those weapons, a rifle Roomberg claims was found in Matamoros, was not even listed in the court pleadings as being among the guns Castillo was accused of selling. The other weapon, a handgun allegedly found in Reynosa, Fulmer Madewell said, “is approved for import into the United States as a sport firearm.”
Castillo contends he never trafficked arms in Mexico — a claim advanced by the prosecution that Castillo contends is false. In fact, the magistrate who signed the ATF complaint that led to Castillo’s indictment specifically struck the trafficking charge from the complaint, because there was no evidence supporting it.
Political Payback?
Johnny Sutton, a former assistant district attorney in Harris County, Texas, hitched his star to the Bush political machine in 1995, when he was named the Criminal Justice Policy Director for then-Governor Bush. He served in that post until 2000, when Bush was elected president. In the wake of Bush’s victory, Sutton was named associate deputy attorney general at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and also served as a policy coordinator for the Bush-Cheney presidential transition team.
In late October of 2001, Sutton was appointed by Bush to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio. The U.S. Senate confirmed the appointment a month later.
Former President George W. Bush has described Sutton publicly as a “a dear friend of mine from Texas.”
______________________________
TOMMY:
MR ERIC HOLDER:
Tip: SUTTON MADE HIS BONES COVERING UP ASPECTS OF MY COMPLAINTS (US DOJ OIG--FBI OPR, CHRISTINA MOORE AFFADAVIT, MEXICAN MAFIA MURDER AFFADAVIT, YOGURT SHOP MURDERS PROBABLE CAUSE MEMO).
SUTTON MADE HIS BONES WITH MUELLER, AND PAT PATERSON AT FBI SAN ANTONIO SAC, for covering up my CHRISTINA MOORE MURDER AFFADAVIT that you have "conveniently dismissed, ignored, and happily hidden."
CHRISTINA MOORE MURDER of an Enron witness...using same m.o. used on me, and...no investigation from HOLDER as he repeats the corruption from CHENEY'S REIGN OF TERROR?
THAT AFFADAVIT and later internet posts at RC CITY JOURNAL, CONSPIRACY CAFE made available for "MUELLER AND SPECIAL AGENT STEVEN PLUTA" (SF, SOUTH DAKOTA FBI)...for review of facts leading to the obvious suspicion: CHENEY ORDERED THE HIT ON MOORE, AND AUSTIN ATTY. WHITTINGTON WAS "THE CUTOUT" ON THE NSA 902ND COUNTERINTEL GROUP'S SIGINT.
SIGINT uses CALEA WIRETAP.
CALEA WIRETAP IS A COMPUTERIZED WIRETAP.
HARD DISC RECORDS ALREADY SCRUBBED AFTER FBI HELPED CHENEY AND HAYDEN COVER UP THE EVIDENCE?
GO ASK BOB.
GO ASK MUELLER IF HE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE?
WHEN I LINKED CHENEY TO THIS MURDER OF AN ENRON WITNESS...MUELLER CONFRONTED CHENEY.
CHENEY THEN ORGANIZED THE SOUTH TEXAS QUAIL HUNT...WITH WHITTINGTON IN ATTENDENCE.
SECRET SERVICE SAID, "...they were arguing about some woman....".
WHITTINGTON GETS SHOT BY AN OUT OF CONTROL MURDERING DRUNK IDIOT...NAMED...DEAD EYE DICK CHENEY.
MUELLER DID NOT PUT A CRIM REFERRAL ON SUTTON'S DESK.
SUTTON NOT CALLED BY SEN PAT LEAHY?
LEAHY also does not call MUELLER?
________________________________________________________________
Castillo caused headaches in the 1980s for George W. Bush’s father, then vice president of the U.S. under Ronald Reagan, and for a number of Reagan administration officials who later went on to serve in George W. Bush’s administration. That fact can’t be ignored given the Bush administration’s history, as marked by various scandals, of assuring payback for its political enemies.
Castillo, a decorated Vietnam veteran who has no prior criminal record, on Oct. 22, 2008, was sentenced by Judge Furgeson to 37 months in a federal prison. On the advice of his attorney at that time (De La Garza), Castillo agreed on Oct. 1 to plead out to charges that he sold guns without a license after the original charges against him — making illegal gun purchases — were dropped after eight months because the prosecution had to concede they were bogus.
However, the prosecution threatened to re-indict Castillo on multiple other serious charges if he did not agree to cop a plea on the new charges. Castillo, with no money to take his case all the way to trial and already worn down from enduring months of fighting the bogus illegal gun-purchase charges, agreed to take the plea deal after De La Garza assured him that he would keep his DEA and veteran benefits so he could support his family. Castillo says De La Garza also told him that he likely would get probation given his background of service to the country.
Neither promise panned out.
De La Garza defends the plea deal, telling Narco News previously in a phone interview that Castillo was facing “a roll of the dice.” If he had not taken the deal, the government, he says, would have come at him with guns blazing and he might well have gotten far more time in jail.
“The government was not going away,” De La Garza said. “The threat was that they would go to the next grand jury and they would throw a whole bunch of stuff at him, five or six more counts.”
De La Garza also claimed that in a discussion outside the courtroom the day the plea deal was struck (on Oct. 1), Roomberg told him that Castillo would keep his benefits if he pled out to the new charges. And De La Garza says he relayed that information to Castillo — though De La Garza concedes he never assured it was written into the plea deal.
However, at the hearing last week before Judge Furgeson, Roomberg showed little concern over the fact that Castillo may have been mislead about the terms of the plea deal.
“Enough is enough!” Roomberg said to the judge. “No one wants to go to jail. I am sorry he [Castillo] will lose his benefits. He had every option not to commit a crime. Now he has to pay the price.”
Castillo made it clear to Judge Furgeson during testimony at his Oct. 1, 2008, court hearing, however, that he had reason to be concerned about the course of justice in his case because he believed there was a bull’s-eye painted on his back due to his role as a whistleblower in the Iran/Contra scandal.
From the transcript of that Oct. 1 hearing:
One of the major problems I had with the government was that I got involved or initiated the Iran/Contra investigation back at that time in El Salvador, in Guatemala, with Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North and I started reporting the incidents of drug trafficking and arms smuggling by several branches of our government. …
The Iran/Contra scandal, which played out during Reagan’s second term as president, involved efforts to illegally raise funds for the Nicaraguan Contra’s counter-insurgency against the government of Nicaragua via the sale of arms to Iran. The scandal also involved, as Castillo revealed in his whistleblowing at the time, funds raised from U.S.-sanctioned narcotics trafficking. Investigative journalist Gary Webb further bolstered Castillo’s claims of the U.S. government’s involvement in narco-trafficking in his now-famous Dark Alliance series published in 1996 by the San Jose Mercury News.
Castillo, while a DEA agent in Central America in the 1980s, during the Reagan/Bush administration, uncovered evidence that the CIA and the White House National Security Council, through San Antonio, Texas, native and national counter-terrorism coordinator Lt. Col. Oliver North and other CIA assets, were carrying out illegal operations at two hangers at Ilopango Airport in El Salvador. Those airport hangars, Castillo contends, served as weapons and narcotics transshipment centers for funding and arming the U.S.-backed Contras.
In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush pardoned six former Reagan administration officials convicted of crimes related to their roles in the Iran/Contra scandal. President George W. Bush selected one of those individuals, Elliott Abrams, to serve as a special assistant to the president and a senior director on the National Security Council. He also appointed another Iran/Contra figure, John Poindexter, as director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Information Awareness Office. Poindexter’s Iran/Contra-related conviction involved multiple felony counts, including conspiracy and obstruction of justice. It was later reversed on appeal.
No Stranger to Controversy
During his tenure as a U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas (based in San Antonio), Sutton has been at the center of a number of controversial criminal cases, some of which have elicited national outrage.
Prosecutors under Sutton’s watch put Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean in a federal prison facing sentences of 10 years-plus for shooting a drug smuggler in the posterior, a case that fermented national protest (primarily from the political right).
Sutton also oversaw the infamous House of Death case in which a U.S. government informant assisted in the torture and murders of at least a dozen people between August 2003 and mid-January 2004 in Juarez, Mexico (just across the border from El Paso, Texas, which is part of Sutton’s district).
He also appears to have played a role in the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. During the course of that scandal, which unraveled in 2007, Sutton served as the chairman of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys, which has major influence in developing Department of Justice (DOJ) policies.
It is in the context of that latter role that Sutton’s name shows up in some of the e-mails turned over to Congress by the Department of Justice concerning the Bush administration’s controversial move to fire eight U.S. Attorneys — allegedly, according to some critics, in retaliation for their failure to pursue prosecutorial strategies deemed to be in the administration’s political interests.
According to the e-mails, it is clear Sutton was in the loop on the firings (see link). How big a role Sutton played, if any, in initiating or orchestrating those terminations behind the scenes, or in pursuing politically motivated prosecutions, is not clear from the electronic missives. But given his favored status within the Bush administration, and his long-time ties to then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and to President Bush, it seems that someone in Congress or President Barack Obama’s administration should be probing that possibility.
Higher Powers
Sutton’s office may consider any allegation that Castillo is the victim of a conspiracy played out as part of a political prosecution “ridiculous.” And Sutton’s office may even consider Narco News’ coverage of Castillo’s case as evidence that Castillo is “a danger to the community.”
But the judge in Castillo’s case doesn’t seem to be totally convinced that the Sutton’s office has an ironclad case against Castillo.
“All of us are very concerned about the drug war in Mexico,” Judge Furgeson said at the Feb. 19 hearing. “It is bringing enormous instability to that nation and creating problems for both Mexico and the United States.”
He added that the shipment of weapons to Mexico from the United States “is despicable and shouldn’t happen.” But Judge Furgeson also stressed that Castillo has a constitutional right to be represented by effective counsel.
“I am going to extend the [prison] report date [for Castillo] until I see the briefings for the appeal from both sides,” Ferguson ultimately ruled at the Feb. 19 hearing. “And I expect those to be done in March or April or June, so I’m extending the report date to July 20. At that point, I can take a look and decide if this matter [Castillo’s freedom] should be extended through the appeal [process].”
And in a direct slap-down of the prosecution’s contention that Castillo should be locked up because he is somehow dangerous, Judge Furgeson said: “Mr. Castillo has an unblemished record [since his conviction] and I do not see him as a further danger to society.”
So, it seems, Castillo stood up to the power of Sutton’s office and walked out of court last week with the wind of justice at his back. But his fate in the U.S. Justice system is far from determined at this point, since his case now hinges on an appeal to a higher court and another set of judges — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.
For now, Sutton remains in power as a U.S. Attorney in the Obama Justice Department. In that light, President Obama’s new Attorney General, Eric Holder, might well want to take a close look at Castillo’s case as part of considering Sutton’s future with the DOJ.
After all, Sutton’s prosecution of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean has already resulted in Congressional inquiries and ongoing cries for further investigation — political pressure that ultimately, it can be argued, led President Bush to commute their sentences just prior to leaving office in mid-January.
In addition, Sutton has already been exposed as an individual who was willing to use his political pull within the Bush administration to silence and retaliate against a DEA whistleblower, Sandalio Gonzalez, who sought to expose the U.S. government’s complicity in the House of Death mass murder in Juarez, which also nearly led to the death of a DEA agent and his family in that same city.
And now Sutton’s office is at the center of the questionable prosecution of Iran/Contra whistleblower Castillo.
“I have no doubt that if Sutton was aware of all this [De La Garza’s conflicts of interest in Castillo’s case], he would have used it to put pressure on Cele’s attorney,” says Gonzalez, who, before being forced into retirement in the wake of exposing the complicity of Sutton’s office in the House of Death murders, served as Special Agent in Charge of DEA’s El Paso field office. “Those guys have no scruples.”
Maybe Castillo, and Narco News for reporting on his story, are simply “outrageous” and a danger to society, as Sutton’s prosecutor, Roomberg, contends.
Or maybe it is Sutton and his minions that represent the real danger to society, and it’s time for the Obama administration to consider bringing some hope and change to Texas, where this country’s latest national nightmare has its roots.
That is for you, kind readers, to decide.
Stay tuned…
Prosecutor claims Iran/Contra whistleblower is a “danger” to society
Bill Conroy
Narco News
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Iran/Contra whistleblower Celerino “Cele” Castillo III was scheduled to report to prison on March 5, but the power of justice has intervened on his behalf.
A federal judge in San Antonio, at a hearing held late last week, ruled that Castillo’s report date to prison should be extended until July 20. The judge, W. Royal Furgeson Jr., issued his ruling over the objections of a federal prosecutor, who argued that Castillo should be sent to prison because he was a “danger to the community.”
The hearing was called by the judge to consider a motion to allow Castillo to remain free on bail through his appeal. The motion was filed by Castillo’s current attorney, public defender Judy Fulmer Madewell.
“One of the government’s arguments [made by the U.S. prosecutor, Mark T. Roomberg] as to why my client is a danger to the community is that he put an outrageous and erratic posting on his Web site,” Fulmer Madewell told the judge at the Feb. 19 hearing in federal court in San Antonio. “That story was actually written by someone else … so it was not an outrageous post by the defendant.”
In fact, Narco News originally published that story (U.S. government finally exacts revenge on Iran/Contra whistleblower Cele Castillo). The article raises serious questions about whether Castillo’s prosecution was politically motivated.
Castillo was convicted late last year on federal charges of dealing firearms without a license in a case marked by numerous irregularities and peculiar coincidences that raise the specter of a frame-up.
For example, Castillo was being represented by a lawyer who was in the process of having his bar license suspended for misappropriating his clients’ funds. In fact, that attorney, Robert “Eddie” De La Garza, was aware on Oct. 17, 2008, (five days before Castillo’s sentencing date on Oct. 22) that his Texas law license was being suspended effective Nov. 1, 2008.
On top of that, this same lawyer’s son was facing serious gun charges in another federal court in Texas at the same time he was representing Castillo.
De La Garza’s son, Andrew, in February 2007 was indicted on weapons charges as the result of an ATF investigation in McAllen, Texas — near the Mexican border and the same city where the same federal law enforcement agency worked to make the case against Castillo.
According to evidenced submitted to the court by Fulmer Madewell, one of the ATF agents involved in the case made against De La Garza’s son also was involved in Castillo’s case.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Andrew De La Garza was charged with making a false statement to a firearms dealer during the acquisition of a gun and possessing a firearm with an obliterated ID and was facing a potential 15-year prison stint. That case is still playing out in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Castillo’s case is being heard in the Western District of Texas — prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for that district, led by Johnny Sutton.
De La Garza’s kid was offered a plea deal on May 2, 2008, a couple weeks after his father took on Castillo’s case. The prosecutor in the son’s case agreed to drop one count “at the time of sentencing” and agreed to recommend a decrease in the offense level on the other count — a good deal that promised to substantially reduce the potential prison sentence. But that deal is still subject to the judge’s discretion at the time of sentencing.
Added to that coincidence of events is the fact that sentencing dates in the case involving De la Garza’s son have been postponed several times -— each time to move the date back past a crucial court date in Castillo’s case. (The latest postponement pushed the kid’s sentencing date back to late March, after Castillo’s original March 5 prison-report date.)
Those facts on there own create a huge conflict of interest for De La Garza in handling Castillo’s case, given that both his law-license woes and the charges facing his son would have made it extremely difficult for him to provide a vigorous defense for Castillo. In the back of his mind, the attorney had to worry about his future, and that of his son’s, should he run afoul of the prosecutor in Castillo’s case, according to attorneys and law enforcers who spoke with Narco News.
Fulmer Madewell raised the issue of De La Garza’s conflict of interest in the hearing held last week (on Feb. 19) at the John H. Wood Jr. U.S. Courthouse Building in San Antonio. Fulmer Madewell told the judge that she was in the process of preparing briefs for Castillo’s appeal that likely would include a claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel.”
“We already have sufficient public evidence in this case to bring it up now,” Fulmer Madewell said. “… In this case, the defendant’s attorney [De La Garza] failed to notify the court and the client of the conflict of interest and the ramifications of that conflict. … He should have told the court about the conflict so that the court had a chance to address it. … If the [appeals] court finds there was ineffective assistance of counsel in this case, it is likely to consider remanding the case [back to Judge Furgeson’s court] for further inquiry to determine what would have happened had the court known of these conflicts.”
Roomberg dismissed that argument.
“The defense wants us to speculate and believe that the U.S. Attorney’s Office … cut some deal with the defendant’s attorney [De La Garza] to throw the case [Castillo’s case]. That’s ridiculous,” he told the judge at the Feb. 19 hearing. “They [the defense] have not demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel and have not alleged prejudice that rises to the level of a constitutional issue that might result in a new trial or reversal.”
Roomberg also told the judge, without specifying what evidence existed to back up the claim, that two of the “cop killer” guns allegedly sold by Castillo have since been found in Mexico — with the unspoken implication that they were sold to narco-traffickers.
However, Fulmer Madewell pointed out to the judge that one of those weapons, a rifle Roomberg claims was found in Matamoros, was not even listed in the court pleadings as being among the guns Castillo was accused of selling. The other weapon, a handgun allegedly found in Reynosa, Fulmer Madewell said, “is approved for import into the United States as a sport firearm.”
Castillo contends he never trafficked arms in Mexico — a claim advanced by the prosecution that Castillo contends is false. In fact, the magistrate who signed the ATF complaint that led to Castillo’s indictment specifically struck the trafficking charge from the complaint, because there was no evidence supporting it.
Political Payback?
Johnny Sutton, a former assistant district attorney in Harris County, Texas, hitched his star to the Bush political machine in 1995, when he was named the Criminal Justice Policy Director for then-Governor Bush. He served in that post until 2000, when Bush was elected president. In the wake of Bush’s victory, Sutton was named associate deputy attorney general at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and also served as a policy coordinator for the Bush-Cheney presidential transition team.
In late October of 2001, Sutton was appointed by Bush to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio. The U.S. Senate confirmed the appointment a month later.
Former President George W. Bush has described Sutton publicly as a “a dear friend of mine from Texas.”
______________________________
TOMMY:
MR ERIC HOLDER:
Tip: SUTTON MADE HIS BONES COVERING UP ASPECTS OF MY COMPLAINTS (US DOJ OIG--FBI OPR, CHRISTINA MOORE AFFADAVIT, MEXICAN MAFIA MURDER AFFADAVIT, YOGURT SHOP MURDERS PROBABLE CAUSE MEMO).
SUTTON MADE HIS BONES WITH MUELLER, AND PAT PATERSON AT FBI SAN ANTONIO SAC, for covering up my CHRISTINA MOORE MURDER AFFADAVIT that you have "conveniently dismissed, ignored, and happily hidden."
CHRISTINA MOORE MURDER of an Enron witness...using same m.o. used on me, and...no investigation from HOLDER as he repeats the corruption from CHENEY'S REIGN OF TERROR?
THAT AFFADAVIT and later internet posts at RC CITY JOURNAL, CONSPIRACY CAFE made available for "MUELLER AND SPECIAL AGENT STEVEN PLUTA" (SF, SOUTH DAKOTA FBI)...for review of facts leading to the obvious suspicion: CHENEY ORDERED THE HIT ON MOORE, AND AUSTIN ATTY. WHITTINGTON WAS "THE CUTOUT" ON THE NSA 902ND COUNTERINTEL GROUP'S SIGINT.
SIGINT uses CALEA WIRETAP.
CALEA WIRETAP IS A COMPUTERIZED WIRETAP.
HARD DISC RECORDS ALREADY SCRUBBED AFTER FBI HELPED CHENEY AND HAYDEN COVER UP THE EVIDENCE?
GO ASK BOB.
GO ASK MUELLER IF HE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE?
WHEN I LINKED CHENEY TO THIS MURDER OF AN ENRON WITNESS...MUELLER CONFRONTED CHENEY.
CHENEY THEN ORGANIZED THE SOUTH TEXAS QUAIL HUNT...WITH WHITTINGTON IN ATTENDENCE.
SECRET SERVICE SAID, "...they were arguing about some woman....".
WHITTINGTON GETS SHOT BY AN OUT OF CONTROL MURDERING DRUNK IDIOT...NAMED...DEAD EYE DICK CHENEY.
MUELLER DID NOT PUT A CRIM REFERRAL ON SUTTON'S DESK.
SUTTON NOT CALLED BY SEN PAT LEAHY?
LEAHY also does not call MUELLER?
________________________________________________________________
Castillo caused headaches in the 1980s for George W. Bush’s father, then vice president of the U.S. under Ronald Reagan, and for a number of Reagan administration officials who later went on to serve in George W. Bush’s administration. That fact can’t be ignored given the Bush administration’s history, as marked by various scandals, of assuring payback for its political enemies.
Castillo, a decorated Vietnam veteran who has no prior criminal record, on Oct. 22, 2008, was sentenced by Judge Furgeson to 37 months in a federal prison. On the advice of his attorney at that time (De La Garza), Castillo agreed on Oct. 1 to plead out to charges that he sold guns without a license after the original charges against him — making illegal gun purchases — were dropped after eight months because the prosecution had to concede they were bogus.
However, the prosecution threatened to re-indict Castillo on multiple other serious charges if he did not agree to cop a plea on the new charges. Castillo, with no money to take his case all the way to trial and already worn down from enduring months of fighting the bogus illegal gun-purchase charges, agreed to take the plea deal after De La Garza assured him that he would keep his DEA and veteran benefits so he could support his family. Castillo says De La Garza also told him that he likely would get probation given his background of service to the country.
Neither promise panned out.
De La Garza defends the plea deal, telling Narco News previously in a phone interview that Castillo was facing “a roll of the dice.” If he had not taken the deal, the government, he says, would have come at him with guns blazing and he might well have gotten far more time in jail.
“The government was not going away,” De La Garza said. “The threat was that they would go to the next grand jury and they would throw a whole bunch of stuff at him, five or six more counts.”
De La Garza also claimed that in a discussion outside the courtroom the day the plea deal was struck (on Oct. 1), Roomberg told him that Castillo would keep his benefits if he pled out to the new charges. And De La Garza says he relayed that information to Castillo — though De La Garza concedes he never assured it was written into the plea deal.
However, at the hearing last week before Judge Furgeson, Roomberg showed little concern over the fact that Castillo may have been mislead about the terms of the plea deal.
“Enough is enough!” Roomberg said to the judge. “No one wants to go to jail. I am sorry he [Castillo] will lose his benefits. He had every option not to commit a crime. Now he has to pay the price.”
Castillo made it clear to Judge Furgeson during testimony at his Oct. 1, 2008, court hearing, however, that he had reason to be concerned about the course of justice in his case because he believed there was a bull’s-eye painted on his back due to his role as a whistleblower in the Iran/Contra scandal.
From the transcript of that Oct. 1 hearing:
One of the major problems I had with the government was that I got involved or initiated the Iran/Contra investigation back at that time in El Salvador, in Guatemala, with Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North and I started reporting the incidents of drug trafficking and arms smuggling by several branches of our government. …
The Iran/Contra scandal, which played out during Reagan’s second term as president, involved efforts to illegally raise funds for the Nicaraguan Contra’s counter-insurgency against the government of Nicaragua via the sale of arms to Iran. The scandal also involved, as Castillo revealed in his whistleblowing at the time, funds raised from U.S.-sanctioned narcotics trafficking. Investigative journalist Gary Webb further bolstered Castillo’s claims of the U.S. government’s involvement in narco-trafficking in his now-famous Dark Alliance series published in 1996 by the San Jose Mercury News.
Castillo, while a DEA agent in Central America in the 1980s, during the Reagan/Bush administration, uncovered evidence that the CIA and the White House National Security Council, through San Antonio, Texas, native and national counter-terrorism coordinator Lt. Col. Oliver North and other CIA assets, were carrying out illegal operations at two hangers at Ilopango Airport in El Salvador. Those airport hangars, Castillo contends, served as weapons and narcotics transshipment centers for funding and arming the U.S.-backed Contras.
In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush pardoned six former Reagan administration officials convicted of crimes related to their roles in the Iran/Contra scandal. President George W. Bush selected one of those individuals, Elliott Abrams, to serve as a special assistant to the president and a senior director on the National Security Council. He also appointed another Iran/Contra figure, John Poindexter, as director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Information Awareness Office. Poindexter’s Iran/Contra-related conviction involved multiple felony counts, including conspiracy and obstruction of justice. It was later reversed on appeal.
No Stranger to Controversy
During his tenure as a U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas (based in San Antonio), Sutton has been at the center of a number of controversial criminal cases, some of which have elicited national outrage.
Prosecutors under Sutton’s watch put Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean in a federal prison facing sentences of 10 years-plus for shooting a drug smuggler in the posterior, a case that fermented national protest (primarily from the political right).
Sutton also oversaw the infamous House of Death case in which a U.S. government informant assisted in the torture and murders of at least a dozen people between August 2003 and mid-January 2004 in Juarez, Mexico (just across the border from El Paso, Texas, which is part of Sutton’s district).
He also appears to have played a role in the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. During the course of that scandal, which unraveled in 2007, Sutton served as the chairman of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys, which has major influence in developing Department of Justice (DOJ) policies.
It is in the context of that latter role that Sutton’s name shows up in some of the e-mails turned over to Congress by the Department of Justice concerning the Bush administration’s controversial move to fire eight U.S. Attorneys — allegedly, according to some critics, in retaliation for their failure to pursue prosecutorial strategies deemed to be in the administration’s political interests.
According to the e-mails, it is clear Sutton was in the loop on the firings (see link). How big a role Sutton played, if any, in initiating or orchestrating those terminations behind the scenes, or in pursuing politically motivated prosecutions, is not clear from the electronic missives. But given his favored status within the Bush administration, and his long-time ties to then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and to President Bush, it seems that someone in Congress or President Barack Obama’s administration should be probing that possibility.
Higher Powers
Sutton’s office may consider any allegation that Castillo is the victim of a conspiracy played out as part of a political prosecution “ridiculous.” And Sutton’s office may even consider Narco News’ coverage of Castillo’s case as evidence that Castillo is “a danger to the community.”
But the judge in Castillo’s case doesn’t seem to be totally convinced that the Sutton’s office has an ironclad case against Castillo.
“All of us are very concerned about the drug war in Mexico,” Judge Furgeson said at the Feb. 19 hearing. “It is bringing enormous instability to that nation and creating problems for both Mexico and the United States.”
He added that the shipment of weapons to Mexico from the United States “is despicable and shouldn’t happen.” But Judge Furgeson also stressed that Castillo has a constitutional right to be represented by effective counsel.
“I am going to extend the [prison] report date [for Castillo] until I see the briefings for the appeal from both sides,” Ferguson ultimately ruled at the Feb. 19 hearing. “And I expect those to be done in March or April or June, so I’m extending the report date to July 20. At that point, I can take a look and decide if this matter [Castillo’s freedom] should be extended through the appeal [process].”
And in a direct slap-down of the prosecution’s contention that Castillo should be locked up because he is somehow dangerous, Judge Furgeson said: “Mr. Castillo has an unblemished record [since his conviction] and I do not see him as a further danger to society.”
So, it seems, Castillo stood up to the power of Sutton’s office and walked out of court last week with the wind of justice at his back. But his fate in the U.S. Justice system is far from determined at this point, since his case now hinges on an appeal to a higher court and another set of judges — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.
For now, Sutton remains in power as a U.S. Attorney in the Obama Justice Department. In that light, President Obama’s new Attorney General, Eric Holder, might well want to take a close look at Castillo’s case as part of considering Sutton’s future with the DOJ.
After all, Sutton’s prosecution of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean has already resulted in Congressional inquiries and ongoing cries for further investigation — political pressure that ultimately, it can be argued, led President Bush to commute their sentences just prior to leaving office in mid-January.
In addition, Sutton has already been exposed as an individual who was willing to use his political pull within the Bush administration to silence and retaliate against a DEA whistleblower, Sandalio Gonzalez, who sought to expose the U.S. government’s complicity in the House of Death mass murder in Juarez, which also nearly led to the death of a DEA agent and his family in that same city.
And now Sutton’s office is at the center of the questionable prosecution of Iran/Contra whistleblower Castillo.
“I have no doubt that if Sutton was aware of all this [De La Garza’s conflicts of interest in Castillo’s case], he would have used it to put pressure on Cele’s attorney,” says Gonzalez, who, before being forced into retirement in the wake of exposing the complicity of Sutton’s office in the House of Death murders, served as Special Agent in Charge of DEA’s El Paso field office. “Those guys have no scruples.”
Maybe Castillo, and Narco News for reporting on his story, are simply “outrageous” and a danger to society, as Sutton’s prosecutor, Roomberg, contends.
Or maybe it is Sutton and his minions that represent the real danger to society, and it’s time for the Obama administration to consider bringing some hope and change to Texas, where this country’s latest national nightmare has its roots.
That is for you, kind readers, to decide.
Stay tuned…
MR HOLDER....is fagging around, "...no charges before hearing Bean testify about being chipped, mind controlled, and fried with microwave radiation"??
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/
Senate to investigate CIA's actions under Bush
J. Scott Applewhite, Associated Press
CIA chief Leon E. Panetta said officers should not be prosecuted if they were acting on orders.
The 'fact-finding' effort will seek details on secret prisons and interrogation methods -- but will not aim to determine if CIA officials broke laws, legislative sources say.
By Greg Miller
February 27, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The Senate Intelligence Committee is preparing to launch an investigation of the CIA's detention and interrogation programs under President George W. Bush, setting the stage for a sweeping examination of some of most secretive and controversial operations in recent agency history.
The inquiry is aimed at uncovering new information on the origins of the programs as well as scrutinizing how they were executed -- including the conditions at clandestine CIA prison sites and the interrogation regimens used to break Al Qaeda suspects, according to Senate aides familiar with the investigation plans.
Officials said the inquiry was not designed to determine whether CIA officials broke laws. "The purpose here is to do fact-finding in order to learn lessons from the programs and see if there are recommendations to be made for detention and interrogations in the future," said a senior Senate aide, who like others described the plan on condition of anonymity because it had not been made public.
Still, the investigation is likely to call new attention to the agency's conduct in operations that drew condemnation around the world. It is also bound to renew friction between Democrats and Republicans who have spent much of the last five years fighting over the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism.
The investigation also could draw comparisons to the special Senate committee formed to investigate the CIA in 1975 and headed by Sen. Frank Church, an Idaho Democrat. Revelations by the Church Committee led to greater congressional oversight and legislation restricting intelligence activities.
The terms and scope of the new inquiry still were being negotiated by members of the committee and senior staffers Thursday. The senior aide said that the committee had no short-term plans to hold public hearings, and that it was not clear whether the panel would release its final report to the public.
The inquiry, which could take a year or more to complete, means the CIA will once again be the target of intense congressional scrutiny at a time when it is engaged in two wars and its ongoing pursuit of Al Qaeda.
The agency was stripped of some of its power and prestige after coming under severe criticism in previous investigations of its failures leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq.
But whereas those investigations focused largely on errors in the CIA's analytic efforts, the new inquiry will dive directly into its most sensitive operations, seeking to unearth details that previous generations of agency officials referred to as the "crown jewels."
During the Bush administration, the agency was often able to safeguard many of those secrets. Lawmakers have never been told the locations of the CIA's secret prisons overseas, for example.
But the Obama administration is expected to give congressional investigators new access to classified records as well as individuals who took part in operating the secret prisons and interrogating detainees.
CIA Director Leon E. Panetta pledged this week that he would cooperate with any congressional investigation.
"If those committees are seeking information in these areas, we'll cooperate with them," Panetta said in a meeting with reporters Wednesday. "I think that we have a responsibility to be transparent on these issues and to provide them that information."
Panetta argued that CIA officers should not face prosecution if they were acting on orders in accordance with Bush administration legal opinions.
"I would not support, obviously, an investigation or a prosecution of those individuals," Panetta said. "I think they did their job, they did it pursuant to the guidance that was provided them, whether you agreed or disagreed with it."
News of the inquiry was greeted with concern among agency veterans.
"There is a good deal of investigation fatigue, and a feeling that the agency has become even more than before a piñata," said a former high-ranking CIA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The new investigation is likely to "stimulate more risk aversion," the former official said. "There's a potential cost to other operations down the road when the current administration says, 'We would like you to take this operation, it's been blessed by lawyers and briefed by Congress.' Why should we do anything anywhere near cutting-edge if down the road the next administration can decide to get back at their political opponents?"
Senate aides declined to say whether the committee would seek new testimony from former CIA Director George J. Tenet or other former top officials who were involved in the creation and management of the programs.
The Senate investigation will examine whether the detention and interrogation operations were carried out in ways that were consistent with the authorities and instructions issued in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, officials said.
___________________________________________________
tommy:
NOTICE HOW THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA COLLUDES WITH THE DEMOCRATS TO AVOID MENTIONING THE FOLLOWING CONSPIRACY FACTS:
1) THOMAS S. BEAN is not, and never was a terrorist, or an enemy combatant, or an agent of a foreign power?
2) BEAN STUCK his neck out to tip SFPD on the CANISTOTA, SD, DETENATORS used by FBI WHO DIRECTED MCVEIGH and NICHOLS to break into the rock quarry where the detenators were sent...so MCVEIGH AND NICHOLS COULD STEAL THEM.
3) Bean agreed to take a polygraph then, and now?
4) BEAN WAS HARASSED, ASSAULTED, THREATENED, BREAKINS, VEHICLE SABOTAGE, SLANDER, MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONS, GPS IN CAR, BUG IN CAR, WIRETAPS, PIN HOLE SPY CAMERA IN HOME FOR 22 YEARS....LAWYERS MURDERED AND TORTURED AND MAIMED TO PREVENT CIVIL SUIT FILING IN SIOUX FALLS FED COURT....ETC.
NO COMMENT FROM BARACK OR HOLDER OF LEAHY on "why these dumbfucks do not want me to testify" under oath?
5) BEAN TENDERED A SIGNED US DOJ OIG--FBI OPR COMPLAINT that was obstructed by MUELLER, GONZO, CHENEY, LEAHY, BIDEN, OBAMA, HOLDER, etc.?
BEAN SENT A TEN PAGE MEMO TO US SEN GRASSLEY AT US SEN JUD COMM.
6) BEAN WAS TORTURED WITH MIND CONTROL CHIP IMPLANTED IN BEAN'S SKULL DURING AN FBI--CIA INTERROGATION SURGICAL TORT...while I slept in my own home?
7) BEAN WAS FRIED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON CALLED DEW that uses MICROWAVE RADIATION TO CAUSE BRAIN TUMORS, HEART ATTACKS, BLOOD CLOTS, BRAIN STROKES.
NO COMMENT FROM HOLDER ON CHARGING THOSE WHO COLLUDED TO COMMIT A PATRIOT ACT CRIME OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE to prevent my access to the fed courtroom?
8) BEAN WILL NOT TESTIFY IN THIS BOGUS SMOKE AND MIRRORS PONY SHOW.
NO PROTECTION FOR WITNESSES...NO WAY BEAN STICKS HIS NECK AGAIN.
FUCK YOU OBAMA--HOLDER--DEMOCRATS.
FUCK OFF AND DIE.
TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE.
_______________________________________________
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/022509a.html
Leahy, Pelosi Differ on Bush Inquiry
By Jason Leopold
February 26, 2009
In one week, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy says he will begin establishing a “commission of inquiry” to investigate the Bush administration’s use of torture and other abuses of power, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is objecting to his plan of granting immunity to some witnesses.
In an interview with Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC program Wednesday, Pelosi called Leahy's investigative plan “a good idea,” but objected to immunity that could prevent prosecutors from holding Bush administration officials accountable for crimes in a court of law.
Pelosi, who refused to hold impeachment hearings when George W. Bush was President, signaled that she now prefers a proposal by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, who wants a “blue-ribbon panel” to probe the Bush administration but seeks a special prosecutor, too.
Pelosi also said that when she was on the House Intelligence Committee during Bush's first term she was briefed about the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" techniques but only in the "abstract." She said she was never told the agency's interrogators intended to use such methods.
In a floor statement earlier on Wednesday, Leahy said he would hold a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 4 to examine the best way for an independent panel to probe how Bush exercised his “national security and executive power as related to counterterrorism efforts.”
“The past can be prologue unless we set things right,” the Vermont Democrat said. “The last administration justified torture, presided over the abuses at Abu Ghraib, destroyed tapes of harsh interrogations, and conducted ‘extraordinary renditions’ that sent people to countries that permit torture during interrogations.
“The last administration used the Justice Department – our premier law enforcement agency – to subvert the intent of congressional statutes. They wrote secret law to give themselves legal cover for these misguided policies, policies that could not withstand scrutiny if brought to light.”
Though Leahy has argued that a “truth commission” is the best way to expose the dark underbelly of Bush’s policies, other civil liberties experts say accountability requires bringing to justice perpetrators of serious crimes, no matter how high their government positions.
On Tuesday, David Swanson of afterdowningstreet.org circulated a petition demanding Attorney General Eric Holder appoint a special prosecutor to launch a criminal investigation into the Bush administration’s actions.
After Leahy’s Senate comments, the American Civil Liberties Union weighed in, urging both a special prosecutor and a congressional select committee.
"Both the Obama administration and Congress have an obligation to conduct investigations in order to achieve accountability and to ensure these egregious errors will not happen again,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “In order for America to move forward and put torture and abuse behind us, we must know how our nation was led astray.”
A Gallup poll, released this month, found a plurality favoring a criminal probe – and a strong majority supporting some additional fact-finding. For instance, on torture, 38 percent favored a criminal investigation while 24 percent favored an inquiry by an independent panel. Thirty-four percent of those polled said they did not support additional investigation of Bush’s policies.
The poll results undercut claims of many Republicans and some Democrats that the public lacks the appetite to look into Bush administration abuses.
Possible Immunity
In his floor speech, Leahy said he’s aware that “many are focused on whether crimes were committed” but added that “it is just as important to learn if significant mistakes were made, regardless of whether they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury to be criminal conduct.
“We compound the serious mistakes already made if we limit our inquiry to criminal investigations and trials,” Leahy said. “Moreover, it is easier for prosecutors to net those far down the ladder than those at the top who set the tone and the policies.
“We do not yet know the full extent of our government's actions in these areas, and we must be sure that an independent review goes beyond the question of whether crimes were committed, to the equally important assessment of whether mistakes were made so we may endeavor not to repeat them. As I have said, we must read the page before we turn it.”
When Leahy first announced his commission plan on Feb. 9, he made clear that his approach would substitute for possible prosecutions and would even try to avoid partisan hard-feelings.
“I don't want to embarrass anybody,” Leahy said. “I don't want to punish anybody. I just want the truth to come out so this never happens again.”
___________________________
tommy:
NEWS FLASH FOR A FAT, Irish, LYING COCKSUCKER named SENATOR PAT LEAHY WHO DID LITTLE OR NOTHING when he should have let me testify long ago when IMPEACHMENT WAS ONLY A HEARING AWAY......... AND WHO IS NOW...CONSPIRING WITH BOB MUELLER TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE while pretending to be looking for the truth:
senator fuckstick...."...GO GROW A 33 INCH DICK CHENEY, AND GO FUCK YOURSELF...".
BEAN only cooperates if it is a FED GRAND JURY.
I DECIDE WHO GOES TOJAIL.
I DECIDE WHO GETS IMMUNITY.
I DECIDE because I'll personally seek justice on my own terms in the street (just like what was done to me for 22 years).
THE GLOVES ARE OFF.
I'LL GET JUSTICE MY WAY.
FUCK LEAHY.
FUCK THE LIE.
FUCK THE PUNK IRISH SHITHEAD WHO IS AND ALWAYS WAS...TOTALLY BOUGHT OFF as he "scripts hearings with Mueller" to make sure NOBODY HAS A CLUE WHAT THEY FUCK THESE IDIOTS HAVE DONE, AND WILL DO LATER.
__________________________________________
Leahy said the truth commission would have the power of subpoena and the authority to grant immunity from prosecution.
______________________________________
TOMMY:
Did you hear that?
Leahy is already planning on fucking up a fed prosecution using immunity.
I refuse to cooperate.
Go fuck yourself Leahy.
______________________________________
When President Obama was asked about Leahy’s proposal during a news conference on Feb. 9, he declined to comment, but reiterated his ambiguous response from the campaign, that no one is above the law but that he favored looking forward, not backward.
“What I have said is that my administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture that we abide by the Geneva Conventions and that we observe our traditions of rule of law and due process as we are vigorously going after terrorists that can do us harm,” Obama said.
"My view is also that nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing then people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen. But generally speaking I am more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.”
Leahy said Wednesday that he has entered into discussions with Obama’s White House, presumably to gain its support for his commission idea. Leahy added that he also has started speaking with other members of Congress and outside experts.
Bush/Cheney Admissions
Over the next few weeks, several critical documents about the Bush administration’s torture practices are expected to be released.
Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is set to make public a voluminous, declassified report about the U.S. military’s role in harsh interrogations. The Justice Department is expected to release a summary of a four-year long investigation into the genesis of legal opinions that cleared the way for torture of detainees.
A special prosecutor also is expected to make public the findings of year-long probe into the destruction of videotapes that showed “war on terror” detainees being waterboarded, a technique that subjects a person to the sensation of drowning and that has been regarded as torture for centuries.
Before leaving office, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney admitted that they authorized the waterboarding of at least three "high-value" detainees and the harsh interrogations of 33 other prisoners.
Leahy singled out Cheney’s comments on Wednesday, saying that the former Vice President “continues to assert unilaterally that the Bush administration’s tactics, including torture, were appropriate and effective. But interested parties’ characterizations and self-serving conclusions are not facts and are not the unadulterated truth.”
Following Leahy’s address to his Senate colleagues, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, who has spent more than a year calling for an independent investigation of the Bush administration’s torture policies, spoke in support of Leahy’s proposal and excoriated the Bush administration for the “wreckage” it left behind.
“The Bush administration left our country deeply in debt, bleeding jobs overseas, our financial institutions rotten and weakened, an economy in free-fall,” Whitehouse said. “This is the wreckage we see everywhere, in shuttered plants … in long lines, and in worried faces.
“But there is also damage that we cannot see so well, the damage below the waterline of our democracy – damage caused, I believe, by a systematic effort to twist policy to suit political ends; to substitute ideology for science, fact and law; and to misuse instruments of power. ...
“The path back from the dark side may lead us down some unfamiliar valleys of remorse and repugnance before we can return to the light.
“We may have to face our fellow Americans saying to us, ‘No, please, tell us that we did not do that, tell us that Americans did not do that’ – and we will have to explain, somehow. This is no small thing, and not easy; this will not be comfortable or proud; but somehow it must be done.”
Jason Leopold has launched his own Web site, The Public Record, at www.pubrecord.org.
Senate to investigate CIA's actions under Bush
J. Scott Applewhite, Associated Press
CIA chief Leon E. Panetta said officers should not be prosecuted if they were acting on orders.
The 'fact-finding' effort will seek details on secret prisons and interrogation methods -- but will not aim to determine if CIA officials broke laws, legislative sources say.
By Greg Miller
February 27, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The Senate Intelligence Committee is preparing to launch an investigation of the CIA's detention and interrogation programs under President George W. Bush, setting the stage for a sweeping examination of some of most secretive and controversial operations in recent agency history.
The inquiry is aimed at uncovering new information on the origins of the programs as well as scrutinizing how they were executed -- including the conditions at clandestine CIA prison sites and the interrogation regimens used to break Al Qaeda suspects, according to Senate aides familiar with the investigation plans.
Officials said the inquiry was not designed to determine whether CIA officials broke laws. "The purpose here is to do fact-finding in order to learn lessons from the programs and see if there are recommendations to be made for detention and interrogations in the future," said a senior Senate aide, who like others described the plan on condition of anonymity because it had not been made public.
Still, the investigation is likely to call new attention to the agency's conduct in operations that drew condemnation around the world. It is also bound to renew friction between Democrats and Republicans who have spent much of the last five years fighting over the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism.
The investigation also could draw comparisons to the special Senate committee formed to investigate the CIA in 1975 and headed by Sen. Frank Church, an Idaho Democrat. Revelations by the Church Committee led to greater congressional oversight and legislation restricting intelligence activities.
The terms and scope of the new inquiry still were being negotiated by members of the committee and senior staffers Thursday. The senior aide said that the committee had no short-term plans to hold public hearings, and that it was not clear whether the panel would release its final report to the public.
The inquiry, which could take a year or more to complete, means the CIA will once again be the target of intense congressional scrutiny at a time when it is engaged in two wars and its ongoing pursuit of Al Qaeda.
The agency was stripped of some of its power and prestige after coming under severe criticism in previous investigations of its failures leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq.
But whereas those investigations focused largely on errors in the CIA's analytic efforts, the new inquiry will dive directly into its most sensitive operations, seeking to unearth details that previous generations of agency officials referred to as the "crown jewels."
During the Bush administration, the agency was often able to safeguard many of those secrets. Lawmakers have never been told the locations of the CIA's secret prisons overseas, for example.
But the Obama administration is expected to give congressional investigators new access to classified records as well as individuals who took part in operating the secret prisons and interrogating detainees.
CIA Director Leon E. Panetta pledged this week that he would cooperate with any congressional investigation.
"If those committees are seeking information in these areas, we'll cooperate with them," Panetta said in a meeting with reporters Wednesday. "I think that we have a responsibility to be transparent on these issues and to provide them that information."
Panetta argued that CIA officers should not face prosecution if they were acting on orders in accordance with Bush administration legal opinions.
"I would not support, obviously, an investigation or a prosecution of those individuals," Panetta said. "I think they did their job, they did it pursuant to the guidance that was provided them, whether you agreed or disagreed with it."
News of the inquiry was greeted with concern among agency veterans.
"There is a good deal of investigation fatigue, and a feeling that the agency has become even more than before a piñata," said a former high-ranking CIA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The new investigation is likely to "stimulate more risk aversion," the former official said. "There's a potential cost to other operations down the road when the current administration says, 'We would like you to take this operation, it's been blessed by lawyers and briefed by Congress.' Why should we do anything anywhere near cutting-edge if down the road the next administration can decide to get back at their political opponents?"
Senate aides declined to say whether the committee would seek new testimony from former CIA Director George J. Tenet or other former top officials who were involved in the creation and management of the programs.
The Senate investigation will examine whether the detention and interrogation operations were carried out in ways that were consistent with the authorities and instructions issued in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, officials said.
___________________________________________________
tommy:
NOTICE HOW THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA COLLUDES WITH THE DEMOCRATS TO AVOID MENTIONING THE FOLLOWING CONSPIRACY FACTS:
1) THOMAS S. BEAN is not, and never was a terrorist, or an enemy combatant, or an agent of a foreign power?
2) BEAN STUCK his neck out to tip SFPD on the CANISTOTA, SD, DETENATORS used by FBI WHO DIRECTED MCVEIGH and NICHOLS to break into the rock quarry where the detenators were sent...so MCVEIGH AND NICHOLS COULD STEAL THEM.
3) Bean agreed to take a polygraph then, and now?
4) BEAN WAS HARASSED, ASSAULTED, THREATENED, BREAKINS, VEHICLE SABOTAGE, SLANDER, MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONS, GPS IN CAR, BUG IN CAR, WIRETAPS, PIN HOLE SPY CAMERA IN HOME FOR 22 YEARS....LAWYERS MURDERED AND TORTURED AND MAIMED TO PREVENT CIVIL SUIT FILING IN SIOUX FALLS FED COURT....ETC.
NO COMMENT FROM BARACK OR HOLDER OF LEAHY on "why these dumbfucks do not want me to testify" under oath?
5) BEAN TENDERED A SIGNED US DOJ OIG--FBI OPR COMPLAINT that was obstructed by MUELLER, GONZO, CHENEY, LEAHY, BIDEN, OBAMA, HOLDER, etc.?
BEAN SENT A TEN PAGE MEMO TO US SEN GRASSLEY AT US SEN JUD COMM.
6) BEAN WAS TORTURED WITH MIND CONTROL CHIP IMPLANTED IN BEAN'S SKULL DURING AN FBI--CIA INTERROGATION SURGICAL TORT...while I slept in my own home?
7) BEAN WAS FRIED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON CALLED DEW that uses MICROWAVE RADIATION TO CAUSE BRAIN TUMORS, HEART ATTACKS, BLOOD CLOTS, BRAIN STROKES.
NO COMMENT FROM HOLDER ON CHARGING THOSE WHO COLLUDED TO COMMIT A PATRIOT ACT CRIME OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE to prevent my access to the fed courtroom?
8) BEAN WILL NOT TESTIFY IN THIS BOGUS SMOKE AND MIRRORS PONY SHOW.
NO PROTECTION FOR WITNESSES...NO WAY BEAN STICKS HIS NECK AGAIN.
FUCK YOU OBAMA--HOLDER--DEMOCRATS.
FUCK OFF AND DIE.
TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE.
_______________________________________________
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/022509a.html
Leahy, Pelosi Differ on Bush Inquiry
By Jason Leopold
February 26, 2009
In one week, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy says he will begin establishing a “commission of inquiry” to investigate the Bush administration’s use of torture and other abuses of power, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is objecting to his plan of granting immunity to some witnesses.
In an interview with Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC program Wednesday, Pelosi called Leahy's investigative plan “a good idea,” but objected to immunity that could prevent prosecutors from holding Bush administration officials accountable for crimes in a court of law.
Pelosi, who refused to hold impeachment hearings when George W. Bush was President, signaled that she now prefers a proposal by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, who wants a “blue-ribbon panel” to probe the Bush administration but seeks a special prosecutor, too.
Pelosi also said that when she was on the House Intelligence Committee during Bush's first term she was briefed about the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" techniques but only in the "abstract." She said she was never told the agency's interrogators intended to use such methods.
In a floor statement earlier on Wednesday, Leahy said he would hold a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 4 to examine the best way for an independent panel to probe how Bush exercised his “national security and executive power as related to counterterrorism efforts.”
“The past can be prologue unless we set things right,” the Vermont Democrat said. “The last administration justified torture, presided over the abuses at Abu Ghraib, destroyed tapes of harsh interrogations, and conducted ‘extraordinary renditions’ that sent people to countries that permit torture during interrogations.
“The last administration used the Justice Department – our premier law enforcement agency – to subvert the intent of congressional statutes. They wrote secret law to give themselves legal cover for these misguided policies, policies that could not withstand scrutiny if brought to light.”
Though Leahy has argued that a “truth commission” is the best way to expose the dark underbelly of Bush’s policies, other civil liberties experts say accountability requires bringing to justice perpetrators of serious crimes, no matter how high their government positions.
On Tuesday, David Swanson of afterdowningstreet.org circulated a petition demanding Attorney General Eric Holder appoint a special prosecutor to launch a criminal investigation into the Bush administration’s actions.
After Leahy’s Senate comments, the American Civil Liberties Union weighed in, urging both a special prosecutor and a congressional select committee.
"Both the Obama administration and Congress have an obligation to conduct investigations in order to achieve accountability and to ensure these egregious errors will not happen again,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “In order for America to move forward and put torture and abuse behind us, we must know how our nation was led astray.”
A Gallup poll, released this month, found a plurality favoring a criminal probe – and a strong majority supporting some additional fact-finding. For instance, on torture, 38 percent favored a criminal investigation while 24 percent favored an inquiry by an independent panel. Thirty-four percent of those polled said they did not support additional investigation of Bush’s policies.
The poll results undercut claims of many Republicans and some Democrats that the public lacks the appetite to look into Bush administration abuses.
Possible Immunity
In his floor speech, Leahy said he’s aware that “many are focused on whether crimes were committed” but added that “it is just as important to learn if significant mistakes were made, regardless of whether they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury to be criminal conduct.
“We compound the serious mistakes already made if we limit our inquiry to criminal investigations and trials,” Leahy said. “Moreover, it is easier for prosecutors to net those far down the ladder than those at the top who set the tone and the policies.
“We do not yet know the full extent of our government's actions in these areas, and we must be sure that an independent review goes beyond the question of whether crimes were committed, to the equally important assessment of whether mistakes were made so we may endeavor not to repeat them. As I have said, we must read the page before we turn it.”
When Leahy first announced his commission plan on Feb. 9, he made clear that his approach would substitute for possible prosecutions and would even try to avoid partisan hard-feelings.
“I don't want to embarrass anybody,” Leahy said. “I don't want to punish anybody. I just want the truth to come out so this never happens again.”
___________________________
tommy:
NEWS FLASH FOR A FAT, Irish, LYING COCKSUCKER named SENATOR PAT LEAHY WHO DID LITTLE OR NOTHING when he should have let me testify long ago when IMPEACHMENT WAS ONLY A HEARING AWAY......... AND WHO IS NOW...CONSPIRING WITH BOB MUELLER TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE while pretending to be looking for the truth:
senator fuckstick...."...GO GROW A 33 INCH DICK CHENEY, AND GO FUCK YOURSELF...".
BEAN only cooperates if it is a FED GRAND JURY.
I DECIDE WHO GOES TOJAIL.
I DECIDE WHO GETS IMMUNITY.
I DECIDE because I'll personally seek justice on my own terms in the street (just like what was done to me for 22 years).
THE GLOVES ARE OFF.
I'LL GET JUSTICE MY WAY.
FUCK LEAHY.
FUCK THE LIE.
FUCK THE PUNK IRISH SHITHEAD WHO IS AND ALWAYS WAS...TOTALLY BOUGHT OFF as he "scripts hearings with Mueller" to make sure NOBODY HAS A CLUE WHAT THEY FUCK THESE IDIOTS HAVE DONE, AND WILL DO LATER.
__________________________________________
Leahy said the truth commission would have the power of subpoena and the authority to grant immunity from prosecution.
______________________________________
TOMMY:
Did you hear that?
Leahy is already planning on fucking up a fed prosecution using immunity.
I refuse to cooperate.
Go fuck yourself Leahy.
______________________________________
When President Obama was asked about Leahy’s proposal during a news conference on Feb. 9, he declined to comment, but reiterated his ambiguous response from the campaign, that no one is above the law but that he favored looking forward, not backward.
“What I have said is that my administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture that we abide by the Geneva Conventions and that we observe our traditions of rule of law and due process as we are vigorously going after terrorists that can do us harm,” Obama said.
"My view is also that nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing then people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen. But generally speaking I am more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.”
Leahy said Wednesday that he has entered into discussions with Obama’s White House, presumably to gain its support for his commission idea. Leahy added that he also has started speaking with other members of Congress and outside experts.
Bush/Cheney Admissions
Over the next few weeks, several critical documents about the Bush administration’s torture practices are expected to be released.
Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is set to make public a voluminous, declassified report about the U.S. military’s role in harsh interrogations. The Justice Department is expected to release a summary of a four-year long investigation into the genesis of legal opinions that cleared the way for torture of detainees.
A special prosecutor also is expected to make public the findings of year-long probe into the destruction of videotapes that showed “war on terror” detainees being waterboarded, a technique that subjects a person to the sensation of drowning and that has been regarded as torture for centuries.
Before leaving office, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney admitted that they authorized the waterboarding of at least three "high-value" detainees and the harsh interrogations of 33 other prisoners.
Leahy singled out Cheney’s comments on Wednesday, saying that the former Vice President “continues to assert unilaterally that the Bush administration’s tactics, including torture, were appropriate and effective. But interested parties’ characterizations and self-serving conclusions are not facts and are not the unadulterated truth.”
Following Leahy’s address to his Senate colleagues, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, who has spent more than a year calling for an independent investigation of the Bush administration’s torture policies, spoke in support of Leahy’s proposal and excoriated the Bush administration for the “wreckage” it left behind.
“The Bush administration left our country deeply in debt, bleeding jobs overseas, our financial institutions rotten and weakened, an economy in free-fall,” Whitehouse said. “This is the wreckage we see everywhere, in shuttered plants … in long lines, and in worried faces.
“But there is also damage that we cannot see so well, the damage below the waterline of our democracy – damage caused, I believe, by a systematic effort to twist policy to suit political ends; to substitute ideology for science, fact and law; and to misuse instruments of power. ...
“The path back from the dark side may lead us down some unfamiliar valleys of remorse and repugnance before we can return to the light.
“We may have to face our fellow Americans saying to us, ‘No, please, tell us that we did not do that, tell us that Americans did not do that’ – and we will have to explain, somehow. This is no small thing, and not easy; this will not be comfortable or proud; but somehow it must be done.”
Jason Leopold has launched his own Web site, The Public Record, at www.pubrecord.org.
At least one man named JOE THE PLUMBER is talking straight: Why is OBAMA--HOLDER a bunch of pussies, cowards, and corrupt lowlife cocksuckers?
http://thinkprogress.org/
Exclusive: Joe the Plumber suggests some members of Congress should be shot.
On Wednesday, Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher said that if he were in Congress, he would “probably be in jail” because he’d be charged with “slapping some member.” He added, “And that’s not [bull] either.” ThinkProgress asked Joe at CPAC yesterday which members he would most like to slap. “Pretty much anybody that’s stood there and said anything bad about our troops, pretty much anybody who sat there and talked treasonous talk about America,” Joe said. He then implied that some members of Congress should be shot:
Back in the day, really, when people would talk about our military in a poor way, somebody would shoot ‘em. And there’d be nothing said about that, because they knew it was wrong. You don’t talk about our troops. You support our troops. Especially when our congressmen and senators sit there and say bad things in an ongoing conflict.
Watch it:
______________________________________________________
tommy:
WHEN HOLDER AND OBAMA start carrying the water for the BUSH--CHENEY--MILITARY--RIGHT WING GESTAPO....you know it is all over for America.
When ERIC "house nigger Uncle Tom punk" HOLDER shows no interest in protecting cooperating witnesses ( DR MARK GORDON, THOMAS S. BEAN, DR DAVID W. BEAN, LYNN BEAN, ETC) who stuck their necks out on numerous high profile crimes committed by GOP--FBI--CIA--NSA--DOD CIFA UNIT....that's when you realize JOE THE PLUMBER is totally on point.
______________________________________________________________
http://thinkprogress.org/
John Bolton jokes about nuking Chicago, entire CPAC audience erupts in laughter.
This morning, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He tried to up the fear quotient in the room by raising the prospect of an Iranian-sent nuclear attack on an American city. “It’s [a] tiny [threat] compared to the Soviet Union,” Bolton said, “but is the loss of one American city — pick one at random: Chicago — is that a tiny threat?” The audience erupted in cheers and laughter at the idea of Obama’s home city being obliterated. Watch it:
_______________________________________________
tommy:
NOTICE THAT WHEN GOP SCUM, POLICE STATE ACTORS...ETC...make statements that should trip a TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM HARASSMENT CAMPAIGN...the punk pussy BOB MUELLER stands down?
NOTICE "house nigger" HOLDER also stands down?
_________________________________________________
http://thinkprogress.org/
Limbaugh Responds To Sanford: The ‘Hell We Don’t’ Want Obama To Fail! Just Need ‘The Guts’ To Say So
Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted that in an interview with the Real Clear Politics, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) was asked about the “view that perhaps Republicans are rooting for President Obama to fail. “Anybody who wants him to fail is an idiot,” Sanford responded. The question was a clear reference to Rush Limbaugh declaring on Inauguration Day, “I hope Obama fails.”
Today on his radio show, Limbaugh responded to Sanford’s comments. Limbaugh suggested that while Sanford in spirit agrees with him, the governor “had” to denounce his comments for political reasons. Limbaugh then reiterated his hope that Obama will fail:
LIMBAUGH: I am told South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford called me an idiot, not by name. But he said, “Anyone who wants Obama to fail is an idiot.” I don’t anybody else who said it. So, I guess he’s talking about– … Politicians have different audiences than I do and they’ve got to say things in different ways. So, after he said, “Anyone who wants Obama to fail is an idiot,” then went on in his own way to say, “Gosh, I hope this doesn’t work.” … He just had to say, “We don’t want the president to fail.”
Hell we don’t! We want something to blow up here politically. We want something to not go right. … We’re talking about freedom that is under assault!
Later, Limbaugh suggested that Sanford simply didn’t have “the guts to talk about” Obama the way he does on his radio show. “Everybody wants to talk about [Obama failing] within the confines of policy,” Limbaugh lamented. Watch it:
__________________________________________________
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/
For the second time since the Inauguration, the Obama administration finds itself defending Bush's use of state secrets claims.
The Justice Department is seeking to delay hearings in a lawsuit involving warrantless wiretaps of a now-defunct Saudi Islamic charity operating in Oregon.
The Bush administration had previously warned that the judge in the trial would not be able to protect against the release of sensitive information if the trial were allowed to proceed.
The case is the first and only to challenge warrantless wiretapping. (Associated Press)
__________________________________________
tommy:
You can read the writing on the wall can't you?
NO AUDACITY OF HOPE.
NO CHANGE.
NO CONTACT WITH BEAN.
NO HONEST TESTIMONY FROM BEAN.
NO HOPE.
NO CHANGE.
NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOLDER and MUKASY--GONZO--ASHCROFT.
NO CIVIL LIBERTIES.
NO PROTECTION FOR WITNESSES.
NO COMMENT FROM HOUSE NIGGER HOLDER, the bought off extorted pussy fagging around at DOJ HQ.
NO COMMENT FROM OBAMA.
NO INTEREST FROM THE MEDIA ON BEAN'S TESTIMONY?
NOTHING.
BLUE WALL OF SILENCE.
FASCISM.
TYRANNY.
MADNESS.
DESTRUCTION.
NOTHING?!
Exclusive: Joe the Plumber suggests some members of Congress should be shot.
On Wednesday, Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher said that if he were in Congress, he would “probably be in jail” because he’d be charged with “slapping some member.” He added, “And that’s not [bull] either.” ThinkProgress asked Joe at CPAC yesterday which members he would most like to slap. “Pretty much anybody that’s stood there and said anything bad about our troops, pretty much anybody who sat there and talked treasonous talk about America,” Joe said. He then implied that some members of Congress should be shot:
Back in the day, really, when people would talk about our military in a poor way, somebody would shoot ‘em. And there’d be nothing said about that, because they knew it was wrong. You don’t talk about our troops. You support our troops. Especially when our congressmen and senators sit there and say bad things in an ongoing conflict.
Watch it:
______________________________________________________
tommy:
WHEN HOLDER AND OBAMA start carrying the water for the BUSH--CHENEY--MILITARY--RIGHT WING GESTAPO....you know it is all over for America.
When ERIC "house nigger Uncle Tom punk" HOLDER shows no interest in protecting cooperating witnesses ( DR MARK GORDON, THOMAS S. BEAN, DR DAVID W. BEAN, LYNN BEAN, ETC) who stuck their necks out on numerous high profile crimes committed by GOP--FBI--CIA--NSA--DOD CIFA UNIT....that's when you realize JOE THE PLUMBER is totally on point.
______________________________________________________________
http://thinkprogress.org/
John Bolton jokes about nuking Chicago, entire CPAC audience erupts in laughter.
This morning, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He tried to up the fear quotient in the room by raising the prospect of an Iranian-sent nuclear attack on an American city. “It’s [a] tiny [threat] compared to the Soviet Union,” Bolton said, “but is the loss of one American city — pick one at random: Chicago — is that a tiny threat?” The audience erupted in cheers and laughter at the idea of Obama’s home city being obliterated. Watch it:
_______________________________________________
tommy:
NOTICE THAT WHEN GOP SCUM, POLICE STATE ACTORS...ETC...make statements that should trip a TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM HARASSMENT CAMPAIGN...the punk pussy BOB MUELLER stands down?
NOTICE "house nigger" HOLDER also stands down?
_________________________________________________
http://thinkprogress.org/
Limbaugh Responds To Sanford: The ‘Hell We Don’t’ Want Obama To Fail! Just Need ‘The Guts’ To Say So
Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted that in an interview with the Real Clear Politics, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) was asked about the “view that perhaps Republicans are rooting for President Obama to fail. “Anybody who wants him to fail is an idiot,” Sanford responded. The question was a clear reference to Rush Limbaugh declaring on Inauguration Day, “I hope Obama fails.”
Today on his radio show, Limbaugh responded to Sanford’s comments. Limbaugh suggested that while Sanford in spirit agrees with him, the governor “had” to denounce his comments for political reasons. Limbaugh then reiterated his hope that Obama will fail:
LIMBAUGH: I am told South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford called me an idiot, not by name. But he said, “Anyone who wants Obama to fail is an idiot.” I don’t anybody else who said it. So, I guess he’s talking about– … Politicians have different audiences than I do and they’ve got to say things in different ways. So, after he said, “Anyone who wants Obama to fail is an idiot,” then went on in his own way to say, “Gosh, I hope this doesn’t work.” … He just had to say, “We don’t want the president to fail.”
Hell we don’t! We want something to blow up here politically. We want something to not go right. … We’re talking about freedom that is under assault!
Later, Limbaugh suggested that Sanford simply didn’t have “the guts to talk about” Obama the way he does on his radio show. “Everybody wants to talk about [Obama failing] within the confines of policy,” Limbaugh lamented. Watch it:
__________________________________________________
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/
For the second time since the Inauguration, the Obama administration finds itself defending Bush's use of state secrets claims.
The Justice Department is seeking to delay hearings in a lawsuit involving warrantless wiretaps of a now-defunct Saudi Islamic charity operating in Oregon.
The Bush administration had previously warned that the judge in the trial would not be able to protect against the release of sensitive information if the trial were allowed to proceed.
The case is the first and only to challenge warrantless wiretapping. (Associated Press)
__________________________________________
tommy:
You can read the writing on the wall can't you?
NO AUDACITY OF HOPE.
NO CHANGE.
NO CONTACT WITH BEAN.
NO HONEST TESTIMONY FROM BEAN.
NO HOPE.
NO CHANGE.
NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOLDER and MUKASY--GONZO--ASHCROFT.
NO CIVIL LIBERTIES.
NO PROTECTION FOR WITNESSES.
NO COMMENT FROM HOUSE NIGGER HOLDER, the bought off extorted pussy fagging around at DOJ HQ.
NO COMMENT FROM OBAMA.
NO INTEREST FROM THE MEDIA ON BEAN'S TESTIMONY?
NOTHING.
BLUE WALL OF SILENCE.
FASCISM.
TYRANNY.
MADNESS.
DESTRUCTION.
NOTHING?!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
KIKES get off easy by corrupt Fed bought off Judges: THE AIPAC MOSSAD SMOKE AND MIRRORS TRIAL
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/02/24/1003248/two-blows-for-aipac-prosecutors-raise-tough-questions
Prosecution of AIPAC staffers dealt major blow
By Ron Kampeas · February 24, 2009
Two rulings in less than a week clear the way for Steve Rosen, left, and Keith Weissman, right, to argue that information they allegedly received and relayed when they were AIPAC staffers did not meet criminal standards of classified information.
The prosecution in the case against two former AIPAC staffers lost two key battles in recent days, raising hopes among the defense that the ex-officials of the pro-Israel lobby ultimately will be acquitted of all charges.
In decisions five days apart, judges quashed government efforts to block the rights of Steve Rosen, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's former foreign policy chief, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, to submit certain material or witnesses for evidence. The rulings, along with the scolding language of the judges’ decisions, suggests the courts view the government as having overreached in its prosecution of the pair for passing on classified information.
On Feb. 19, T.S. Ellis III, the federal judge trying the case in Alexandria, Va., decided to allow defense testimony by William Leonard, the official who until a year ago was the ultimate government authority on what information to classify.
Then, on Tuesday, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., issued a ruling that upheld orders by Ellis that the prosecution must prove that the information Rosen and Weissman allegedly relayed to journalists, Israeli diplomats and colleagues was "closely held" by the United States and potentially damaging to U.S. interests, and was relayed in bad faith.
This would meet the standards for the burden of proof set by the 1917 espionage law under which Rosen and Weissman are being tried.
The Ellis ruling “set a very high threshold for the prosecution to not only demonstrate a particular set of facts, but also to prove intent on the part of the defendant,” explained Steven Aftergood, the director of the Secrecy Project at the Federation of American Scientists, which seeks to protect First Amendment rights.
“That is a difficult and possibly impossible task,” Aftergood said. “The prosecution is left with its all-but-insurmountable burden of proof.”
In what some are calling a rebuke of the government, the three-judge appeals court panel called "improper" the government's effort to overturn Ellis' 2006 decision.
"The government's attempt to piggyback a pretrial review of the court's interpretation is improper at this juncture," the panel said.
In classified information cases like these, pretrial prosecution appeals are meant only to address questions of what classified evidence is admissible, the appeals court noted. The government already had attempted to broaden its narrow grounds for appeal, and last summer the appeals court rejected that bid.
"Our dismissal of that appeal constitutes the law of the case, and we will not revisit it," the appeals court panel said this week.
Some observers close to the defendants say these decisions over the last week give the Obama administration an opportunity to reconsider whether to go ahead with the case, which has proven controversial.
For their part, lawyers for Rosen and Weissman were elated.
"This is a tremendous victory for the defendants," said Baruch Weiss, who represents Weissman.
"The ruling of the 4th Circuit is just the latest confirmation that this is a misdirected case brought under a misdirected theory where the government continues to be reminded that they are wrong,” said Abbe Lowell, the attorney for Rosen. “Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman are anxious to now use all of the various court rulings to move ahead and finally try this case to prove their innocence."
If the case ever goes to trial, which is scheduled for April 21.
In pretrial hearings, prosecutors have suggested that Ellis' restrictions create a high barrier to overcome in a trial that has been delayed multiple times over four years.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in eastern Virginia, told JTA after this week’s ruling that "We are reviewing the decision and will respond accordingly.”
The decision by Ellis to allow Leonard to testify also contained reproachful language. The government had argued that because Leonard had consulted for about an hour with prosecutors in 2006, he was barred from testifying for the defense under laws that restrict government employees involved in a case from testifying against the United States.
Prosecutors had threatened to jail Leonard for up to a year if he testified, but Ellis rejected their request to ban his testimony. Ellis questioned whether prosecutors sought Leonard’s removal because his theories about government overclassification, which Leonard made plain in his 2006 meeting with them, would assist the defense.
"That Leonard might disagree with the government is no reason to allow the government to invoke" the relevant statute "to prevent Leonard from serving as a defense expert," Ellis wrote.
This week’s ruling provides a potential opening for the Obama administration, which has been eager to undo some of the secrecy provisions instituted by President Bush, to drop the case.
Despite the Bush administration's closeness to the pro-Israel community, its fingerprints were all over the case, which was of a piece with the administration’s efforts to restore executive powers and expand secrecy.
The case was brought in 2005 by Paul McNulty, a U.S. attorney who later was named deputy attorney general. Before then, McNulty was best known for his work to impeach President Clinton and during the 2000 electoral recount in Florida.
The decision not to revisit Ellis' rulings buries at last all arguments by prosecutors that the 1917 espionage statute did not require proof of bad faith and that its baseline was that the release of the information might help a foreign government, not necessarily that it would harm the United States.
The section of the law that criminalized the receipt and distribution of national defense information by civilians has barely been tested in the courts.
The appeals court ruling Tuesday contained other victories for the defense.
It upheld Ellis' allowance of an "Israeli briefing document" -- apparently relevant because it shows that U.S. officials were relaying to Israeli counterparts information almost identical to that referred to in the original indictment. The briefing document also allowed an FBI report that may help show that information allegedly discussed by Weissman in a conversation about the 1996 bombing of a housing complex for U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia was broadly known.
Ellis’ ruling also allows a number of National Security Presidential Directives on Iran.
FBI agents raided AIPAC’s offices in August 2004. Rosen and Weissman were indicted a year later.
Prosecution of AIPAC staffers dealt major blow
By Ron Kampeas · February 24, 2009
Two rulings in less than a week clear the way for Steve Rosen, left, and Keith Weissman, right, to argue that information they allegedly received and relayed when they were AIPAC staffers did not meet criminal standards of classified information.
The prosecution in the case against two former AIPAC staffers lost two key battles in recent days, raising hopes among the defense that the ex-officials of the pro-Israel lobby ultimately will be acquitted of all charges.
In decisions five days apart, judges quashed government efforts to block the rights of Steve Rosen, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's former foreign policy chief, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, to submit certain material or witnesses for evidence. The rulings, along with the scolding language of the judges’ decisions, suggests the courts view the government as having overreached in its prosecution of the pair for passing on classified information.
On Feb. 19, T.S. Ellis III, the federal judge trying the case in Alexandria, Va., decided to allow defense testimony by William Leonard, the official who until a year ago was the ultimate government authority on what information to classify.
Then, on Tuesday, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., issued a ruling that upheld orders by Ellis that the prosecution must prove that the information Rosen and Weissman allegedly relayed to journalists, Israeli diplomats and colleagues was "closely held" by the United States and potentially damaging to U.S. interests, and was relayed in bad faith.
This would meet the standards for the burden of proof set by the 1917 espionage law under which Rosen and Weissman are being tried.
The Ellis ruling “set a very high threshold for the prosecution to not only demonstrate a particular set of facts, but also to prove intent on the part of the defendant,” explained Steven Aftergood, the director of the Secrecy Project at the Federation of American Scientists, which seeks to protect First Amendment rights.
“That is a difficult and possibly impossible task,” Aftergood said. “The prosecution is left with its all-but-insurmountable burden of proof.”
In what some are calling a rebuke of the government, the three-judge appeals court panel called "improper" the government's effort to overturn Ellis' 2006 decision.
"The government's attempt to piggyback a pretrial review of the court's interpretation is improper at this juncture," the panel said.
In classified information cases like these, pretrial prosecution appeals are meant only to address questions of what classified evidence is admissible, the appeals court noted. The government already had attempted to broaden its narrow grounds for appeal, and last summer the appeals court rejected that bid.
"Our dismissal of that appeal constitutes the law of the case, and we will not revisit it," the appeals court panel said this week.
Some observers close to the defendants say these decisions over the last week give the Obama administration an opportunity to reconsider whether to go ahead with the case, which has proven controversial.
For their part, lawyers for Rosen and Weissman were elated.
"This is a tremendous victory for the defendants," said Baruch Weiss, who represents Weissman.
"The ruling of the 4th Circuit is just the latest confirmation that this is a misdirected case brought under a misdirected theory where the government continues to be reminded that they are wrong,” said Abbe Lowell, the attorney for Rosen. “Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman are anxious to now use all of the various court rulings to move ahead and finally try this case to prove their innocence."
If the case ever goes to trial, which is scheduled for April 21.
In pretrial hearings, prosecutors have suggested that Ellis' restrictions create a high barrier to overcome in a trial that has been delayed multiple times over four years.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in eastern Virginia, told JTA after this week’s ruling that "We are reviewing the decision and will respond accordingly.”
The decision by Ellis to allow Leonard to testify also contained reproachful language. The government had argued that because Leonard had consulted for about an hour with prosecutors in 2006, he was barred from testifying for the defense under laws that restrict government employees involved in a case from testifying against the United States.
Prosecutors had threatened to jail Leonard for up to a year if he testified, but Ellis rejected their request to ban his testimony. Ellis questioned whether prosecutors sought Leonard’s removal because his theories about government overclassification, which Leonard made plain in his 2006 meeting with them, would assist the defense.
"That Leonard might disagree with the government is no reason to allow the government to invoke" the relevant statute "to prevent Leonard from serving as a defense expert," Ellis wrote.
This week’s ruling provides a potential opening for the Obama administration, which has been eager to undo some of the secrecy provisions instituted by President Bush, to drop the case.
Despite the Bush administration's closeness to the pro-Israel community, its fingerprints were all over the case, which was of a piece with the administration’s efforts to restore executive powers and expand secrecy.
The case was brought in 2005 by Paul McNulty, a U.S. attorney who later was named deputy attorney general. Before then, McNulty was best known for his work to impeach President Clinton and during the 2000 electoral recount in Florida.
The decision not to revisit Ellis' rulings buries at last all arguments by prosecutors that the 1917 espionage statute did not require proof of bad faith and that its baseline was that the release of the information might help a foreign government, not necessarily that it would harm the United States.
The section of the law that criminalized the receipt and distribution of national defense information by civilians has barely been tested in the courts.
The appeals court ruling Tuesday contained other victories for the defense.
It upheld Ellis' allowance of an "Israeli briefing document" -- apparently relevant because it shows that U.S. officials were relaying to Israeli counterparts information almost identical to that referred to in the original indictment. The briefing document also allowed an FBI report that may help show that information allegedly discussed by Weissman in a conversation about the 1996 bombing of a housing complex for U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia was broadly known.
Ellis’ ruling also allows a number of National Security Presidential Directives on Iran.
FBI agents raided AIPAC’s offices in August 2004. Rosen and Weissman were indicted a year later.
CORRUPTION AT CIA: the "falseflag" FOGGO problem with GOSS
http://www.propublica.org/article/corruption-touched-cias-covert-operations
Corruption Touched CIA’s Covert Operations
by Marcus Stern, ProPublica - February 25, 2009 12:00 am EST
Paramilitary agents for the CIA's super-secret Special Activities Division, or SAD, perform raids, ambushes, abductions and other difficult chores overseas, including infiltrating countries to "light up" targets from the ground for air-to-ground missile strikes. This week the government acknowledged for the first time that some of SAD's sensitive air operations were swept up in a fraud conspiracy that reached the highest levels of the CIA and cost the government $40 million.
That information was contained in a series [1] of court [2] filings [3] released in advance of the long-awaited sentencing of Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo, the disgraced former No. 3 official at the CIA.
One remarkable affidavit came from a leader of SAD, a branch of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, which handles covert actions. It indicates that Foggo forced SAD to use a shell company set up by defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes to handle its sensitive air operations, even though Wilkes and his company had no experience in clandestine aviation operations.
Wilkes was Foggo's boyhood friend and a co-conspirator in the bribery scandal that erupted around former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who is serving more than eight years in federal prison.
Since the 9/11 terror strikes, SAD's role in the war on terror has become more prominent. Its paramilitary operatives have been used to snatch high-value suspects from the streets of foreign countries for rendition to black sites for interrogation. When carrying out their operations in other countries, the agents typically do not wear uniforms or carry items that connect them to the U.S. government. If they are caught, the government may disavow any connection to them.
Foggo's sentencing, scheduled Thursday before Judge James C. Cacheris in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., will be the final sentencing of the ring of co-defendants in the bribery scandal that erupted around Cunningham.
Foggo, 53, was running the CIA on a day-to-day basis until he resigned in 2006 after his name surfaced in the scandal. At first, Foggo sought to have the charges against him dismissed. When that failed, he argued that he would need to disclose classified information to defend himself. This practice, sometimes referred to as graymail, was rejected by the court, but led prosecutors to drop 27 of the 28 charges against him.
In September, Foggo pleaded guilty to a single count of defrauding the government of his "honest services" by steering contracts to Wilkes. While Cacheris could sentence Foggo to up to 20 years in prison, the plea agreement calls for 37 months behind bars. Foggo is seeking an even more lenient sentence from the judge.
In the days leading up to the sentencing, prosecutors have sought the release of transcripts from grand jury proceedings that they believe will be helpful in opposing a reduced sentence. The flurry of motions and counter-motions resulted in the release of a trove of documents Monday, including the affidavit from one of SAD's leaders.
In the affidavit [3], in which he is identified as "John Doe # 1," the official says Foggo introduced Wilkes to him and other SAD officials as "someone who had an extensive corporate portfolio that included experience in aviation, and for that reason could assist SAD. Mr. Foggo then left Wilkes with us to discuss our need for cover for our air operations."
Within days, Wilkes provided the group with a $132 million proposal that John Doe # 1described as "unwieldy, cumbersome, and lacking a real understanding of what the Agency needed...If implemented as presented, I believed the proposals would be wasteful, misguided, and contrived."
Nonetheless, Foggo ordered them to proceed quickly. "The rapid decision by Mr. Foggo and the urgent deadlines he imposed on the program meant that we necessarily had to use Mr. Wilkes for the Enhanced Capability, because he was the only option available to us at the time," the official testified. Despite misgivings about the directive coming from Foggo, "we saluted and carried out his orders."
The plan was derailed in August 2005 after Wilkes' and Foggo's roles in the Cunningham scandal surfaced, but not before it had cost the government $40 million in planning expenses, according to the documents.
"Upon being apprised of this, I was greatly relieved that we would not have to proceed with the cover solution with Wilkes, and would have more time to explore the best possible solution," John Doe #1 wrote.
The documents also argue that Wilkes and Foggo tried to incorporate the military's need for armored vehicles into an array of contracts that involved not only the CIA's sensitive air operations but also water for troops in Iraq. Wilkes' and Foggo's deals -- during which they hid their long, personal friendship from other government officials -- included markups of up to 60 percent on the goods and services they sold the CIA.
The documents released Monday provide extensive details about Foggo's efforts to move his mistress from Europe to Langley when he was promoted in November 2004 from chief of support at an undisclosed European location to the agency's No. 3 post, executive director.
According to prosecutors and testimony included in the filing, Foggo arranged for his family to remain in Europe at taxpayer expense while he moved to Langley. He then arranged a CIA job for his mistress, identified only by the initials ER. At first the CIA ruled that ER was ineligible for employment because a background check found that she had an improper relationship with a superior in her previous government position and had destroyed evidence being sought by the inspector general of that agency.
Foggo summoned the agency's managing associate general counsel to his office and insisted that the woman's service was vital and she must be hired, without disclosing his romantic relationship with ER, according to the documents. ER was hired, but her supervisor soon found her work unsatisfactory.
"Instead of being receptive to her supervisor's critiques and suggestions, ER made it clear that she had influence with Foggo. Indeed, she did," the prosecutors' sentencing memo [2] states. "Her supervisor had been an attorney with the (CIA's Office of General Counsel) for 20 years, during which time she received numerous performance awards and even the Career Intelligence Medal, which rewards 'exceptional achievements that substantially contributed to the mission of the Agency' over the course of her career. Within months of crossing Foggo's mistress, however, she suffered a humiliating firing by Foggo."
The government's 24-page reply [1] to Foggo's sentencing memorandum, 31-page sentencing memo [2] and 82-page appendix [3] are full of such previously undisclosed material.
Calls to the offices of the prosecutors and Foggo's defense attorneys weren't returned on Tuesday.
ProPublica Director of Research Lisa Schwartz contributed to this report.
Corruption Touched CIA’s Covert Operations
by Marcus Stern, ProPublica - February 25, 2009 12:00 am EST
Paramilitary agents for the CIA's super-secret Special Activities Division, or SAD, perform raids, ambushes, abductions and other difficult chores overseas, including infiltrating countries to "light up" targets from the ground for air-to-ground missile strikes. This week the government acknowledged for the first time that some of SAD's sensitive air operations were swept up in a fraud conspiracy that reached the highest levels of the CIA and cost the government $40 million.
That information was contained in a series [1] of court [2] filings [3] released in advance of the long-awaited sentencing of Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo, the disgraced former No. 3 official at the CIA.
One remarkable affidavit came from a leader of SAD, a branch of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, which handles covert actions. It indicates that Foggo forced SAD to use a shell company set up by defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes to handle its sensitive air operations, even though Wilkes and his company had no experience in clandestine aviation operations.
Wilkes was Foggo's boyhood friend and a co-conspirator in the bribery scandal that erupted around former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who is serving more than eight years in federal prison.
Since the 9/11 terror strikes, SAD's role in the war on terror has become more prominent. Its paramilitary operatives have been used to snatch high-value suspects from the streets of foreign countries for rendition to black sites for interrogation. When carrying out their operations in other countries, the agents typically do not wear uniforms or carry items that connect them to the U.S. government. If they are caught, the government may disavow any connection to them.
Foggo's sentencing, scheduled Thursday before Judge James C. Cacheris in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., will be the final sentencing of the ring of co-defendants in the bribery scandal that erupted around Cunningham.
Foggo, 53, was running the CIA on a day-to-day basis until he resigned in 2006 after his name surfaced in the scandal. At first, Foggo sought to have the charges against him dismissed. When that failed, he argued that he would need to disclose classified information to defend himself. This practice, sometimes referred to as graymail, was rejected by the court, but led prosecutors to drop 27 of the 28 charges against him.
In September, Foggo pleaded guilty to a single count of defrauding the government of his "honest services" by steering contracts to Wilkes. While Cacheris could sentence Foggo to up to 20 years in prison, the plea agreement calls for 37 months behind bars. Foggo is seeking an even more lenient sentence from the judge.
In the days leading up to the sentencing, prosecutors have sought the release of transcripts from grand jury proceedings that they believe will be helpful in opposing a reduced sentence. The flurry of motions and counter-motions resulted in the release of a trove of documents Monday, including the affidavit from one of SAD's leaders.
In the affidavit [3], in which he is identified as "John Doe # 1," the official says Foggo introduced Wilkes to him and other SAD officials as "someone who had an extensive corporate portfolio that included experience in aviation, and for that reason could assist SAD. Mr. Foggo then left Wilkes with us to discuss our need for cover for our air operations."
Within days, Wilkes provided the group with a $132 million proposal that John Doe # 1described as "unwieldy, cumbersome, and lacking a real understanding of what the Agency needed...If implemented as presented, I believed the proposals would be wasteful, misguided, and contrived."
Nonetheless, Foggo ordered them to proceed quickly. "The rapid decision by Mr. Foggo and the urgent deadlines he imposed on the program meant that we necessarily had to use Mr. Wilkes for the Enhanced Capability, because he was the only option available to us at the time," the official testified. Despite misgivings about the directive coming from Foggo, "we saluted and carried out his orders."
The plan was derailed in August 2005 after Wilkes' and Foggo's roles in the Cunningham scandal surfaced, but not before it had cost the government $40 million in planning expenses, according to the documents.
"Upon being apprised of this, I was greatly relieved that we would not have to proceed with the cover solution with Wilkes, and would have more time to explore the best possible solution," John Doe #1 wrote.
The documents also argue that Wilkes and Foggo tried to incorporate the military's need for armored vehicles into an array of contracts that involved not only the CIA's sensitive air operations but also water for troops in Iraq. Wilkes' and Foggo's deals -- during which they hid their long, personal friendship from other government officials -- included markups of up to 60 percent on the goods and services they sold the CIA.
The documents released Monday provide extensive details about Foggo's efforts to move his mistress from Europe to Langley when he was promoted in November 2004 from chief of support at an undisclosed European location to the agency's No. 3 post, executive director.
According to prosecutors and testimony included in the filing, Foggo arranged for his family to remain in Europe at taxpayer expense while he moved to Langley. He then arranged a CIA job for his mistress, identified only by the initials ER. At first the CIA ruled that ER was ineligible for employment because a background check found that she had an improper relationship with a superior in her previous government position and had destroyed evidence being sought by the inspector general of that agency.
Foggo summoned the agency's managing associate general counsel to his office and insisted that the woman's service was vital and she must be hired, without disclosing his romantic relationship with ER, according to the documents. ER was hired, but her supervisor soon found her work unsatisfactory.
"Instead of being receptive to her supervisor's critiques and suggestions, ER made it clear that she had influence with Foggo. Indeed, she did," the prosecutors' sentencing memo [2] states. "Her supervisor had been an attorney with the (CIA's Office of General Counsel) for 20 years, during which time she received numerous performance awards and even the Career Intelligence Medal, which rewards 'exceptional achievements that substantially contributed to the mission of the Agency' over the course of her career. Within months of crossing Foggo's mistress, however, she suffered a humiliating firing by Foggo."
The government's 24-page reply [1] to Foggo's sentencing memorandum, 31-page sentencing memo [2] and 82-page appendix [3] are full of such previously undisclosed material.
Calls to the offices of the prosecutors and Foggo's defense attorneys weren't returned on Tuesday.
ProPublica Director of Research Lisa Schwartz contributed to this report.
HOLDER ignores ALABAMA GOP DOJ corruption
click BLOGPOST TITLE ABOVE to get linked:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/02/has-bush-doj-produced-another-political.html
Legal Schnauzer Blog:
One couple's encounter with corrupt judges, slimy lawyers, and incompetent prosecutors in Alabama. . . and how you can avoid being cheated by the vermin who make a mockery of our justice system.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Has Bush DOJ Produced Another Political Prisoner?
The answer to our title question apparently is "yes" after the conviction yesterday of Alabama Representative Sue Schmitz (D-Toney) on federal corruption charges.
Strange isn't it that George W. Bush has been out of office more than a month now, but his Department of Justice is the gift that keeps on giving. In this case, the "gift" is political prisoners--people who have been sentenced to prison terms for crimes they did not commit.
Schmitz joins former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, Mississippi lawyer Paul Minor, and former Mississippi judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield as high-profile individuals who were convicted of "serving or working while being a Democrat."
And you can add Alabama insurance executive John W. Goff to that list. He was convicted of the related crime--"standing up to a bunch of corrupt Republicans, particularly Governor Bob Riley."
Schmitz' case truly was about politics. It was not about any of the ludicrous charges brought against her because she supposedly didn't perform up to expectations in her community-relations job with the Alabama CITY program. As Scott Horton of Harper's has stated, there is no crime called "teacher underperforms lesson plan."
But Sue Schmitz apparently is on her way to federal prison anyway. Will Judge R. David Proctor, a George W. Bush appointee, order that Schmitz be imprisoned pending her appeal? That has happened with Siegelman, Minor, and others, so we can assume the answer is "yes."
Here's the real story of the Sue Schmitz case, which was tried twice and probably cost taxpayers into the high six figures or low seven figures: The felony conviction automatically removes Schmitz from the Alabama Legislature, and that's what U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and her GOP cohorts were after. It's all part of a plan, launched by Riley and Alabama GOP head Mike Hubbard, to take over the state legislature in 2010.
We have said in recent days that the case against Schmitz was a "joke"--and we were being charitable. If the law is followed--a very big if--the conviction cannot possibly stand up on appeal.
But we also stated that when Bush prosectors and a Bush-appointed judge are in control in a blood red state like Alabama, anything can happen. We said that Schmitz could only be convicted if the judge was a buffoon and/or the jury was clueless. One, or both, of the those conditions evidently was in place at the Schmitz trial.
God only knows how much prosecution evidence was improperly admitted. Got only knows how much defense evidence was improperly excluded. God only knows what instructions were presented to jurors.
But I doubt that the prosecutors care that their handiwork probably will be overturned. And they certainly do not care that hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars probably were wasted. By the time the Schmitz conviction is overturned, her seat in the legislature will be held by someone else--probably a Republican.
David Fiderer of Huffington Post, a lawyer by training, has written brilliantly about the weaknesses in the government's case against Sue Schmitz. He wrote that prosecutors were trying to exclude volumes of exculpatory evidence, including the inconvenient truth that Schmitz had prevailed in a wrongful-termination lawsuit after being dismissed from the CITY program. Essentially, Alice Martin & Co. wanted to prevent Schmitz from putting on a defense. And with a Bush-appointed judge in charge, I'm guessing that's what happened.
The Decatur Daily voiced concerns months ago about the secrecy with which Judge R. David Proctor conducted the Schmitz trial. One has to wonder what Proctor was trying to hide.
Scott Horton, a Columbia University law professor, said it was a great surprise that the judge allowed the case to the go to the jury at all. And yet, Proctor did it twice.
Just how crazy is "justice" in Alabama? While a federal jury was convicting Schmitz because she supposedly performed poorly on her job, a state judge was ordering that Schmitz be reinstated, with back pay, to the very same job--because she was wrongfully terminated!
As Dave Barry would say, "I'm not making this up."
Posted by legalschnauzer at 9:35 AM
_________________________________________________
TOMMY:
I've noticed how weak and cowardly and worthless the Democrats are...especially with this new bogus boughtoff punk named ERIC HOLDER.
THE DEMS don't fight together or protect each other...no matter how much power they have at US SEN JUD, HOUSE JUD, PELOSI, HOLDER AT DOJ HQ....THESE PUSSIES ARE STILL AS CORRUPT, AS WORTHLESS, AND AS COMPROMISED AS THE SHAMELESS GOP NEOCON SCUM.
HOLDER AND OBAMA still have a murdering lying gutless punk named Bob Mueller at FBI HQ, and...I point out...MUELLER IS CHENEY'S PAL? This guy has sat his fat ass at FBI HQ for eight fucking years of GESTAPO TYRANNY AND...Obama is too weak to fire and forget this fuckhead?
MUELLER COVERED CHENEY'S FLANKS ON 3 SOUTH DAKOTA MURDERS...and the MURDER OF A PREGNANT CHRISTIAN HOUSEWIFE NAMED CHRISTINA MOORE??????????
I gave fuckhead Bob all he needed to lead the country to the promised land: IMPEACHMENT AND INDICTMENTS OF DEAD EYE DICK, DUMSFIELD, GOSS, and so many others?
BOB COVERED IT ALL UP WITH PUSSIFIED FAGBOY EXCUSES LIKE..."...just following our protocol when we obstructed justice by not investigating the Patriot Act Murders in South Dakota...".
THIS fuckhead Mueller...has not been fired by PUPPET BOY OBAMA?
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022503362.html
Ore. state secrets case is Bush leftover for Obama
By WILLIAM McCALL
The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 25, 2009; 9:04 PM
PORTLAND, Ore. -- For the second time since Attorney General Eric Holder ordered a review of Bush administration state secrets claims, the Obama administration finds itself defending the doctrine used to protect anti-terrorism programs accused of illegal spying.
The Justice Department has asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay to delay trial court hearings involving the state secrets privilege and the only U.S. chapter of a defunct Islamic charity based in Saudi Arabia.
A ruling could come as early as Friday in the long legal battle over the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation chapter in Oregon, a case that could challenge warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration.
But government lawyers warned in arguments filed Wednesday with the 9th Circuit that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, the chief judge for the District of Northern California, may not be able to protect against the release of sensitive information if the case is allowed to proceed.
"The district court has made clear that it will provide ... access to classified information over the objections of the Executive (Branch)," the Justice Department said. "That access, once granted, cannot be undone."
The case began when the Bush administration accidentally turned over documents to Al-Haramain attorneys. Lawyers for the defunct charity said the papers showed illegal wiretapping by the National Security Agency.
The documents were returned to the government, which quickly locked them away, claiming they were state secrets that could threaten national security if released.
Lawyers for Al-Haramain argued that they needed the documents to show the wiretapping. But the government dug in its heels, reluctant to share the documents even with federal judges.
The U.S. Treasury Department in 2004 designated the charity as an organization that supports terrorism before the Saudi government closed it. The Bush administration redesignated it in 2008, citing attempts to keep it operating.
The 9th Circuit eventually agreed that the disputed documents were protected as state secrets. But the court ruled that the Oregon chapter of Al-Haramain could try to find another way to show it had standing to sue the government over domestic wiretapping.
A number of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, tried to sue the government over warrantless wiretapping but were denied standing because they could not show they were targeted.
Ann Brick, an attorney for the ACLU chapter in Northern California, said the Al-Haramain case finally allows the issues to be decided by a court.
)
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/02/has-bush-doj-produced-another-political.html
Legal Schnauzer Blog:
One couple's encounter with corrupt judges, slimy lawyers, and incompetent prosecutors in Alabama. . . and how you can avoid being cheated by the vermin who make a mockery of our justice system.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Has Bush DOJ Produced Another Political Prisoner?
The answer to our title question apparently is "yes" after the conviction yesterday of Alabama Representative Sue Schmitz (D-Toney) on federal corruption charges.
Strange isn't it that George W. Bush has been out of office more than a month now, but his Department of Justice is the gift that keeps on giving. In this case, the "gift" is political prisoners--people who have been sentenced to prison terms for crimes they did not commit.
Schmitz joins former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, Mississippi lawyer Paul Minor, and former Mississippi judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield as high-profile individuals who were convicted of "serving or working while being a Democrat."
And you can add Alabama insurance executive John W. Goff to that list. He was convicted of the related crime--"standing up to a bunch of corrupt Republicans, particularly Governor Bob Riley."
Schmitz' case truly was about politics. It was not about any of the ludicrous charges brought against her because she supposedly didn't perform up to expectations in her community-relations job with the Alabama CITY program. As Scott Horton of Harper's has stated, there is no crime called "teacher underperforms lesson plan."
But Sue Schmitz apparently is on her way to federal prison anyway. Will Judge R. David Proctor, a George W. Bush appointee, order that Schmitz be imprisoned pending her appeal? That has happened with Siegelman, Minor, and others, so we can assume the answer is "yes."
Here's the real story of the Sue Schmitz case, which was tried twice and probably cost taxpayers into the high six figures or low seven figures: The felony conviction automatically removes Schmitz from the Alabama Legislature, and that's what U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and her GOP cohorts were after. It's all part of a plan, launched by Riley and Alabama GOP head Mike Hubbard, to take over the state legislature in 2010.
We have said in recent days that the case against Schmitz was a "joke"--and we were being charitable. If the law is followed--a very big if--the conviction cannot possibly stand up on appeal.
But we also stated that when Bush prosectors and a Bush-appointed judge are in control in a blood red state like Alabama, anything can happen. We said that Schmitz could only be convicted if the judge was a buffoon and/or the jury was clueless. One, or both, of the those conditions evidently was in place at the Schmitz trial.
God only knows how much prosecution evidence was improperly admitted. Got only knows how much defense evidence was improperly excluded. God only knows what instructions were presented to jurors.
But I doubt that the prosecutors care that their handiwork probably will be overturned. And they certainly do not care that hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars probably were wasted. By the time the Schmitz conviction is overturned, her seat in the legislature will be held by someone else--probably a Republican.
David Fiderer of Huffington Post, a lawyer by training, has written brilliantly about the weaknesses in the government's case against Sue Schmitz. He wrote that prosecutors were trying to exclude volumes of exculpatory evidence, including the inconvenient truth that Schmitz had prevailed in a wrongful-termination lawsuit after being dismissed from the CITY program. Essentially, Alice Martin & Co. wanted to prevent Schmitz from putting on a defense. And with a Bush-appointed judge in charge, I'm guessing that's what happened.
The Decatur Daily voiced concerns months ago about the secrecy with which Judge R. David Proctor conducted the Schmitz trial. One has to wonder what Proctor was trying to hide.
Scott Horton, a Columbia University law professor, said it was a great surprise that the judge allowed the case to the go to the jury at all. And yet, Proctor did it twice.
Just how crazy is "justice" in Alabama? While a federal jury was convicting Schmitz because she supposedly performed poorly on her job, a state judge was ordering that Schmitz be reinstated, with back pay, to the very same job--because she was wrongfully terminated!
As Dave Barry would say, "I'm not making this up."
Posted by legalschnauzer at 9:35 AM
_________________________________________________
TOMMY:
I've noticed how weak and cowardly and worthless the Democrats are...especially with this new bogus boughtoff punk named ERIC HOLDER.
THE DEMS don't fight together or protect each other...no matter how much power they have at US SEN JUD, HOUSE JUD, PELOSI, HOLDER AT DOJ HQ....THESE PUSSIES ARE STILL AS CORRUPT, AS WORTHLESS, AND AS COMPROMISED AS THE SHAMELESS GOP NEOCON SCUM.
HOLDER AND OBAMA still have a murdering lying gutless punk named Bob Mueller at FBI HQ, and...I point out...MUELLER IS CHENEY'S PAL? This guy has sat his fat ass at FBI HQ for eight fucking years of GESTAPO TYRANNY AND...Obama is too weak to fire and forget this fuckhead?
MUELLER COVERED CHENEY'S FLANKS ON 3 SOUTH DAKOTA MURDERS...and the MURDER OF A PREGNANT CHRISTIAN HOUSEWIFE NAMED CHRISTINA MOORE??????????
I gave fuckhead Bob all he needed to lead the country to the promised land: IMPEACHMENT AND INDICTMENTS OF DEAD EYE DICK, DUMSFIELD, GOSS, and so many others?
BOB COVERED IT ALL UP WITH PUSSIFIED FAGBOY EXCUSES LIKE..."...just following our protocol when we obstructed justice by not investigating the Patriot Act Murders in South Dakota...".
THIS fuckhead Mueller...has not been fired by PUPPET BOY OBAMA?
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022503362.html
Ore. state secrets case is Bush leftover for Obama
By WILLIAM McCALL
The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 25, 2009; 9:04 PM
PORTLAND, Ore. -- For the second time since Attorney General Eric Holder ordered a review of Bush administration state secrets claims, the Obama administration finds itself defending the doctrine used to protect anti-terrorism programs accused of illegal spying.
The Justice Department has asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay to delay trial court hearings involving the state secrets privilege and the only U.S. chapter of a defunct Islamic charity based in Saudi Arabia.
A ruling could come as early as Friday in the long legal battle over the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation chapter in Oregon, a case that could challenge warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration.
But government lawyers warned in arguments filed Wednesday with the 9th Circuit that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, the chief judge for the District of Northern California, may not be able to protect against the release of sensitive information if the case is allowed to proceed.
"The district court has made clear that it will provide ... access to classified information over the objections of the Executive (Branch)," the Justice Department said. "That access, once granted, cannot be undone."
The case began when the Bush administration accidentally turned over documents to Al-Haramain attorneys. Lawyers for the defunct charity said the papers showed illegal wiretapping by the National Security Agency.
The documents were returned to the government, which quickly locked them away, claiming they were state secrets that could threaten national security if released.
Lawyers for Al-Haramain argued that they needed the documents to show the wiretapping. But the government dug in its heels, reluctant to share the documents even with federal judges.
The U.S. Treasury Department in 2004 designated the charity as an organization that supports terrorism before the Saudi government closed it. The Bush administration redesignated it in 2008, citing attempts to keep it operating.
The 9th Circuit eventually agreed that the disputed documents were protected as state secrets. But the court ruled that the Oregon chapter of Al-Haramain could try to find another way to show it had standing to sue the government over domestic wiretapping.
A number of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, tried to sue the government over warrantless wiretapping but were denied standing because they could not show they were targeted.
Ann Brick, an attorney for the ACLU chapter in Northern California, said the Al-Haramain case finally allows the issues to be decided by a court.
)
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Bogus punk Dems talk about TORTURE COMMISSION: witnesses will be dead before testifying if BOB MUELLER is STILL AT FBI HQ
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/02/24/torture_commission/
Senate will advance torture commission
Is there a lot America doesn't know about Bush torture policies? There is, says Sen. Sheldon White house. "This is going to be big."
By Mark Benjamin
Feb. 24, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to move forward with a commission to investigate torture during the Bush administration. Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt., told Salon Tuesday that his panel would soon announce a hearing to study various commission plans. His staff said the announcement could come as early as Wednesday.
While Michigan Democrat Rep. John Conyers drafted a bill to create a commission to review abuse of war powers during the Bush administration, co-sponsored by North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones, Leahy's Senate commission would represent the first concrete steps toward a broad review of U.S. torture since 9-11.
Spearheading Senate efforts to establish a torture commission is Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. As a member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee, Whitehouse is privy to information about interrogations he can't yet share. Still, regarding a potential torture commission, he told Salon, "I am convinced it is going to happen." In fact, his fervor on the issue was palpable. When asked if there is a lot the public still does not know about these issues during the Bush administration, his eyes grew large and he nodded slowly. "Stay on this," he said. "This is going to be big."
Whitehouse admitted he had not discussed the plan yet with President Obama, who has been notably wishy-washy on the notion since taking office. On the one hand, Obama has consistently said that "my administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture." Yet on the other hand, he has insisted that "nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen; but that generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards."
According to Whitehouse, current politics dictate that Congress should take the lead on establishing a torture commission. "When you look at the economic meltdown that [Obama] was left by the Bush administration, you can see why he would want to reassure the American public that he is out there looking at these problems and trying to solve them and not focusing on the sins of the past," he said.
Whitehouse, however, predicted that Obama would not object to a torture commission moving forward in Congress. Besides, he said, "When push comes to shove, we are the legislative branch of government. We have oversight responsibilities. And we don't need the executive branch's approval to look into these things just as a constitutional matter."
Plans to establish the commission still remain in their infancy, as senators and staff look at previous panels, such as the 9-11 Commission, and investigations following Watergate. Whitehouse, a former U.S. attorney, noted that a torture commission might need the power to immunize witnesses on a case-by-case basis. The prospect of future prosecutions, he said, are beside the point. Most important was putting a spotlight on abuses committed by the Bush administration.
"We have this American government, which has an architecture and a shape and a system that drives it and constrains it and that keeps it honest," he said. "And what happened is that the Bush administration figured out a lot of ways to tunnel through the walls and sneak over the fences. So now we need to go back and say, 'We have got to plant those walls deeper so you can not tunnel under them.' We've got to spotlight how they did it," Whitehouse explained. "The ultimate goal in this is to protect and enhance American democracy."
Last week, retired Maj. Gen. Tony Taguba, known for conducting an honest investigation of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, discussed his support for such a commission in an exclusive interview with Salon. Taguba joined a group of former high-level diplomats and law enforcement officials who also announced their support for a torture commission late last week, along with 18 rights groups.
During that interview, Taguba stated that any review must include close analysis of claims from Bush administration officials that abusive interrogations worked. "Some of those activities were actually not effective and those who thought so were in the academic or pristine settings of their offices," Taguba said. "What would they know?"
Whitehouse agreed, and depicted as ironic the fact that some members of the intelligence community saw themselves as "the Lance Armstrongs of interrogation," while some members of the military objected to abuse as ineffective. "In fact, the exact opposite was true," Whitehouse said about such claims from the CIA."It was amateur hour with them, and the career, tough, serious military interrogators said that this just was not effective," he said. "But it is important to prove the point, because they keep saying, 'We saved lives. We interrupted plans. We did this, that and the other.'" Whitehouse added, "Well, when you drill down, there is never a fact there. It turns into fog and evasion."
______________________________________
TOMMY:
Here's my thoughts on this latest punk, posing, pussyfooting faggot act by the cowardly "FBI dick sucking clowns" at The Femocratic Party:
1) After I signed a US DOJ OIG--FBI OPR COMPLAINT AND A TEN PAGE MEMO TO SEN GRASSLEY....NOT ONE DUMBFUCK PUNK DEMOCRATIC STAFFER EVER ONCE TALKED TO ME, OR TRIED TO CONTACT ME WITH US MAIL, EMAIL, OR A PHONE CALL.
The democrats had it all...they did little or nothing except protect themselves from the latest FBI WELLSTONE CONSPIRACY TO MURDER ANOTHER...yes another...Democratic Senator (SD US SEN TIM JOHNSON brain stroked with Directed Energy Weapon...US Sen Ted Kennedy brain stroked...Tim Russert heart attacked...Novak brain stroked...Leroy Rogers brainstroked...Jon Van Patten wheeled out of Sioux Valley Hospital).
HOW COME NOT ONE PUSSY FUCKHEAD CLOWN WHORE IDIOT in Holder's DOJ HQ wants info on THE WELLSTONE MURDER, AND THE FBI PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PATRIOT ACT MURDER?
Total silence?
Total silence and appeasement followed by "mucking in the dark" as the APPEASEMENT STRATEGY OF LEAHY, FEINGOLD, BIDEN, SPECTOR, etc!
Now that CHENEY IS GONE, IMPEACHMENT is irrelevent along with PELOSIWHORES'S self serving credibility which "does not exist" in an objective reasonable universe (anything outside the mainstream media D.C. fantasy world is, the reasonable universe commonly agreed upon by most peer reviewed observers).
PELOSI is still in power?
The APPEASEMENT FAGGOTS AT US SEN JUD COMMITTEE...relied upon the usual smoke machine grandstanding that...amounted to nothing.
Witnesses were not sworn in when Spector (the "magic flip flopping human waffle") was in charge of SEN JUD.
Later, when LEAHY was chairing, sworn statements were irrelevant because "nobody used my facts and advice" to go after the nazi treasonous punk scum known as the neocons: BOB MUELLER, GENERAL HAYDEN, GONZO THE SMILING SPIC CHIMP, etc.
I saw Mueller reading off his script and checking off questions asked and answered?
The pretense of significant oversight created by the pussies was obscured by the appeasement that amounted to a surface layer of contention (hearings in 2005-06)...yet...no hard questions were followed up.
Not one punk at US SEN JUD bothered using key words like: HAND OFF METHOD USED BY FBI TO ILLEGALLY LAUNDER ILLEGALLY OBTAINED INFO...OPERATION SLAMMER USED TO CREATE TERRORIST SUSPECTS USED TO LEGALLY STEAL NO BID FRONT LOADED SURVEILLANCE CONTRACT MONEY KICKED BACK TO FBI, US ATTY'S, AND THE LOCAL COPS?
My ten page memo to US SEN GRASSLEY outlined the mysterious "breadth and scope of the NSA TSP"...yet...not one fucking idiot at SEN JUD COMM bothered reading the fucking complaint or memo to Grassley?
(Note: remember the clown pussies at US SEN JUD COMM fagging around wondering "how can the FBI or NSA or DOJ use illegally obtained info?"...IT'S CALLED THE HAND OFF METHOD OF VIOLATING TITLE 18 USC SECTIONS 2510--et.al, section 2517).
HOW COME MORONIC BOUGHT OFF CORRUPT COCKSUCKERS (Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Leahy, Democrats) have no knowledge or interest in THE STATE OF THE SURVEILLANCE POLICE STATE and how it works, and what laws are violated and ignored by a gutless Uncle Tom House Nigger named ERIC HOLDER (a piss poor excuse for an educated black man from the mean streets of BED STUY, new york)?
NO CHARGES, NO GRAND JURY, NO CONTACT WITH CRIME VICTIM from Holder?
Please explain Mr House Nigger Holder...what the fuck are you doing, and not doing?
2) IF THE PUNKS, LIARS, AND INCOMPETENT WEASELS AT THE DNC, AND US SEN...would not talk to me or use "specific facts and personal pronouns" from my 47 page complaint when the issues were hot and IMPEACHMENT WAS IN REACH...then...uh...WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE FUCKING NEXT BOGUS CLOWN ROUND OF OBSTRUCTION IS GONNA GET AT THE WHOLE TRUTH WITH SWORN STATEMENTS?
Too little, too late.
Who the fuck is gonna stick his neck out again...while BOB MUELLER IS STILL RUNNING HIS GESTAPO WITH NO OVERSIGHT AND NO CHARGES FILED ON BOB AND HIS WIND UP TOY ROBOTS WHO facilitated the CONSPIRACY TO TAMPER WITH A COOPERATING WITNESS WHO ACTUALLY STUCK HIS NECK OUT ON THE SOUTH DAKOTA DETONATORS used by FBI TO BLOW UP THE CHILDREN AT THE MURRAY BUILDING.
OK CITY is linked to 9/11.
HOLDER at DOJ, drew up TRENTADUE AND TRENTADON'TS as a memo to facilitate the OBSTRUCTION OF THE TRENTADUE DEPOSITION OF TERRY NICHOLS who is likely to swear under oath about MCVEIGH'S FBI HANDLER who facilitated the treasonous false flag attack on April 19th, 1995?!@#?!
Not one punk named ERIC "house nigger" HOLDER or BARACK "the spear chucker puppet on a string" OBAMA has an interest or self serving prerogative to "hold fed grand juries that shove the law down Bob Mueller's fat faggot face".
Yet...the dems think someone is dumb enough to testify on TORTURE?
I WAS TORTURED AFTER SIGNING A DOJ OIG--FBI OPR COMPLAINT.
NO CHARGES FROM HOUSE NIGGER HOLDER?
NO FED GRAND JURY WITH MUELLER AND PLUTA SUBPOENAED, with me...showing the punks at DOJ "where the lie is" and how "FBI ALWAYS LIES BY OMISSION".
3) Not one pussified faggot idiot whore at DEMOCRATIC CLOWN ACT has the guts to use personal pronouns when discussing TORTURE, WAR COMMISSIONS ACT, TORTURE MEMOS, TIMELINE EVIDENCE, FISA SELLOUT, PATRIOT ACT RENEWAL, MIND CONTROL, OPERATION SLAMMER, SCHOOL SHOOTERS ON A SHELF, DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS, PATRIOT ACT MURDERS IN SOUTH DAKOTA, and DOD CIFA UNIT USING BLACKWATER INC with FBI counterintelligence agent STEVEN PLUTA providing info from my father's FBI 302...etc?
MR ERIC "house nigger" HOLDER...DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE FBI USED THEIR BADGE TO GET INFO FROM MY FATHER, DR DAVID W. BEAN, to locate my attorneys...so that FBI COULD WORK WITH DOD CIFA UNIT AND BLACKWATER TO MURDER AND MAIM MY ATTORNEYS?"
Motive: prevent my filing of a civil suit and MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
CLEARLY outside the scope of any reasonable FBI perogative.
MUELLER GOES TO JAIL...or he has to pay in the fucking streets, just like I did.
4) IF THE DEMOCRATS cannot get Mueller fired for cause (MUELLER DOES NOT WORK PATRIOT ACT MURDERS, ATTEMPTED MURDERS, CONSPIRACIES TO TAMPER WITH WITNESSES) then...just how are the Democratic cocksuckers gonna "protect witnesses" from being murdered with directed energy weapons, stalking, interstate stalking, mind control chipping, malicious prosecutions based on frame ups and Brady violations....etc?
YOU WILL NOT GET ANYWHERE unless MUELLER IS FIRED TODAY?!
MUELLER WILL NOT RESIGN until his is indicted.
MUELLER CANNOT BE INDICTED until HOLDER FAGGOT holds a fed grand jury.
If this bogus Torture hearing is serious about the real facts and real personal pronouns...then....The US SEN JUD COMM will have to "stop scripting Mueller's testimony" OR......THE SUBPOENAED WITNESSES ARE GONNA END UP DEAD OR FRAMED ON BOGUS CHARGES.
Mueller will again use his "pattern and practise" of obstructing justice by...doing nothing while also "unilaterally rescinding the social contract with America" while Blackwater makes more money murdering and maiming more witnesses.
WHAT PLAN DO THE DEMOCRATIC CLOWNS AT DOJ HQ HAVE...to protect witnesses?
That plan, must include prosecutions.
Without Mueller going to jail with PLUTA, HELLER, REYNALDS, LONG, SRSTKA, MCMAHON, MULLINS, etc.........there will be no protection.
WITHOUT DOD CIFA UNIT and there contractors BLACKWATER INC going to jail...there will be no protection of witnesses before and after testifying...right Mr Holder?
NO ZERO TOLERANCE CRIMINAL CHARGES...means...no protection for witnesses before and after testimony...right?
BLUE WALL OF SILENCE FROM LEAHY on protecting witnesses by destroying Mueller with his own sworn statements...right Pat?
LEAHY AND HOLDER...are both worthless in my book, and I ain't joing a jerkoff clown idiot session without any sort of contact with HOLDER and his staff FILING CHARGES ON MUELLER--DOD CIFA UNIT--BLACKWATER INC.
I TOLD HOLDER AND OBAMA along time ago...OFFER MUELLER A POLYGRAPH in your office...then...PICK YOUR OWN POLYGRAPH EXAMINER, AND PERSONALLY GRILL THIS CORRUPT DUMBFUCK UNTIL HE TELLS ALL THE TRUTH.
FLIP MUELLER TO TELL ALL HE KNOWS.
FORCE THE FUCKHEAD TO STAND UP FOR ONCE IN HIS SECRET CORRUPT PUNK LIFE.
PUT THE HEAT ON BOB.
BREAK THAT FAT FUCKHEAD DOWN.
If Mueller refuses to be polygraphed...he is a National Secuirty risk, and must be fired.
Then, you got to get someone at FBI HQ who you can trust.
Good luck finding an FBI punk who plays the game by the rules.
That should have been obvious to Obama last month.
Obama, Holder...dumbfucks...did nothing and will do nothing to remove fuckhead Mueller.
The problem is FBI FIELD AGENTS facilitating the PATRIOT ACT MURDERS OF DEMOCRATS AND WITNESSES AND LAWYERS.
That is the only avenue of suspicion that HOLDER AND OBAMA should be working on...no?
5) I CAN DESTROY ROBERT SWAN MUELLER, III, AND THE FBI HQ'S CREDIBILITY if I testify.
Why should I stick my neck out when...there is no protection for witnesses who volunteer to take polygraphs?
6) LEAHY DID NOT USE SPECIFIC FACTS AND PERSONAL PRONOUNS in previous bogus pussified grandstanding (The NSA TSP hearings)? LEAHY had all he needed yet...Leahy preferred to "cut back room deals" secretly resulting in no benefit for America.
And, I point out...Leahy was the only guy who was half way serious when doing oversight on shithead Mueller's field faggots?
You can bet, LEAHY DOES NOT HAVE A PROTECTION PLAN TO MAKE SURE WITNESSES LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO TESTIFY.
You can bet ERIC "house nigger" HOLDER never heard of section 1512, 1513 prohibiting the TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES...right Eric?
THE PROTECTION OF WITNESSES SHOULD BE A MAJOR CONCERN FOR HOLDER who also...has obviously jumped on the "see no evil bandwagon" preferring to do what? for whom?
Nothing from the punks on protecting witnesses...right Mr "audacity of hope" Obama?
7) A better hearing and dissemination of info...is right here at this blog.
If you want info, this is where to go, not at a grandstanding jerk off punk session that will very likely end up doing nothing except create the pretext for MORE PATRIOT ACT MURDERS, CRIMES, AND ATTEMPTED MURDERS TO SILENCE DISSENT AND WHISTLE BLOWING COOPERATING WITNESSES.
Mr Holder...do you want to talk to TAMM to reassure him "he has nothing to worry about"?
8) The punk pussified faggot act (democrats)...have...used some info from this blog to get Gonzalez fired ("just what was the straw that broke the camel's back after Gonzo withered and dodged alot of hearings?")....yet, they don't seem to want to talk to me as a witness?
They don't have the guts...do they?...to talk to a fucking witness?
I never got a response in the form of an email, US Mail, phone call?
My testimony would have blown open the NSA TSP hearings?
9) LEAHY conducted a "secret quid pro quo" deal that...uh...did nothing except force GONZO to admit in front of the US SENJUD COMM that "...the NSA TSP program was done...".
With no charges...that meant that "The NSA TSP was renamed" and continued under another flag.
LEAHY negotiating as an appeasement pussy...got nothing.
Anybody victimized by the NSA--FBI madhouse...got nothing.
No hearing from Leahy on NSA TSP.
10) No interest in DASCHLE CAMPAIGN WIRETAPPING, or MICHELLE TAPKEN 'S TESTIMONY?
HOW CAN LEAHY DO ANYTHING...without personally subpoenaeing Tapken to take her statement under oath?
11) With MUELLER STILL EMPLOYED AT FBI HQ...we are led to believe that the punk democrats are gonna do the hearing the way it is supposed to be done (follow specific facts, call all witnesses who committed crimes against me, my family, an and my known associates, call SD US ATTY MICHELLE TAPKEN, call MINNESOTA US ATTY THOMAS HEFFLEFINGER, ask the questions I tell you to ask with witnesses under oath...right? )...when the democrats HAVE ALREADY PROVEN THEMSELVES TO BE INCOMPETENT, WEAK, UNINFORMED, EASILY MISLEAD, AND HAPPILY FAT, CORRUPT AND WORTHLESS TO AMERICA?
Too little, too late.
No protection, no witnesses.
No protection, no charges...no THOMAS S. BEAN TESTIFYING.
END OF STORY.
FBI PUNK MUELLER WINS, because he "did not do his job" and fagged around protecting CHENEY--DUMSFIELD--BLACKWATER--DOD CIFA UNIT--NSA 902ND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE UNIT.
MUELLER WINS by doing nothing except "facilitating his own benefit" (SILENCING DISSENT AND WITNESSES).
OBAMA'S FBI DIRECTOR gets away with TAMPERING WITH COOPERATING WITNESSES by chipping, Torture, Mind Control, OPERATION SLAMMER, and use of DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS ??????
HOW IS RICH GORDON A TERRORIST?
How is CHRISTINA MOORE a Terrorist?
I gave MUELLER FAGGOT all he needed to make an arrest on both of these murders?
Nothing from HOLDER?
Nothing from OBAMA CLOWN?
12) My advice to all witnesses to this bogus Torture hearing:
DO NOT TESTIFY...YOU WILL BE DEAD OR BRAIN STROKED IN THE HOSPITAL FROM THE USE OF A DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPON.
WHY STICK YOUR NECK OUT FOR THIS FAGGOT PUNK DEMOCRATIC BOZO ACT?
HOLDER IS A PUSSY.
OBAMA IS A JOKE.
BOTH have no respect for civil liberties.
Neither fuckhead has stuck his toe in the water, while I was doing the backstroke for 22 years.
BEAN is no chump.
BEAN IS NOT STICKING HIS NECK TO GET WHACKED, FRAMED, AND HARASSED.
DON'T ever stick your neck out in pursuit of justice AS LONG AS MUELLER IS AT FBI (where field faggots OBSTRUCT JUSTICE by subverting their prerogative to investigate CONSPIRACIES TO COMMIT FED CRIMES OF VIOLENCE WHILE THE RADICAL RIGHT WING SHADOW GOVERNMENT SILENCES WITNESSES).
IT ALL COMES DOWN ON MUELLER'S LYING CORRUPT FAT HEAD.
FBI MODUS IS...do nothing and benefit from looking the other way.
FBI MODUS is...remain deliberately indifferent, and benefit from the neutralization of dissent while FBI OBSTRUCTS JUSTICE in a thousand different ways.
That is Bob Mueller's modus.
He covered it all up by doing nothing.
13) The country is dead on arrival.
The Democrats are too little, too late...and I sure the fuck am not gonna stick my neck out for dumb fucks who have already fagged around too much.
14) I REFUSE TO COOPERATE WITH THE CLOWN PUNK PUSSIES known as democrats.
GO AHEAD AND SUBPOENA ME YOU DUMB GUTLESS FAGGOT PUNK PUSSIES.
YOU KNOW AND I KNOW, HOLDER IS A JOKE, AND WILL NOT PROSECUTE THE POLICE STATE.
SO TELL ME...WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO ASSOCIATE WITH THIS CLOWN ACT?
I've seen these fuckheadcrats join the conspiracy to do nothing, while also fagging around the major facts and issues?
I HAVE SEEN DEMOCRATS SCRIPT HEARINGS for the benefit of A LOWLIFE, MURDERING, DRUG DEALING, SWINDLING LYING GUTLESS MARINE CORP SHITHEAD NAMED ROBERT SWAN MUELLER, III, (a key player in this outrage).
15) FUCKHEAD MUELLER AND HIS FBI SPECIAL AGENTS HAVE ONGOING PROBLEMS WITH THEIR PATTERN AND PRACTISE OF "committing overt acts as part of conspiracies to violate" numerous federal laws memorialized in my US DOJ OIG--FBI OPR COMPLAINT?
FBI OPR did not respond to the complaint?
IF MUELLER IS AT FBI HQ...you can forget about any witnesses living long enough to tell the truth.
Bob knows that.
16) THE PROBLEM IS BOB MUELLER.
THE PROBLEM HAS ALWAYS BEEN FBI HQ.
THE PROBLEM IS GETTING MUELLER IN THE FED PEN FOR NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS OF THE FED CRIMINAL CODE.
NOT ONE PUSSIFIED FAGGOT IDIOT WHORE FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY...has shown interest in MUELLER'S FED CRIMINAL CAREER as a shadow government pussy and liar who covered Darth Cheney's criminal flanks in South Dakota.
17) MR LEAHY...LETS SEE YOU SUBPOENAE BEAN TO TESTIFY.
NO SCRIPTS.
NO IMMUNITY.
NO BULLSHIT.
LET'S SEE LEAHY DO HIS FUCKING CLOWN JOB FOR ONCE.
Senate will advance torture commission
Is there a lot America doesn't know about Bush torture policies? There is, says Sen. Sheldon White house. "This is going to be big."
By Mark Benjamin
Feb. 24, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to move forward with a commission to investigate torture during the Bush administration. Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt., told Salon Tuesday that his panel would soon announce a hearing to study various commission plans. His staff said the announcement could come as early as Wednesday.
While Michigan Democrat Rep. John Conyers drafted a bill to create a commission to review abuse of war powers during the Bush administration, co-sponsored by North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones, Leahy's Senate commission would represent the first concrete steps toward a broad review of U.S. torture since 9-11.
Spearheading Senate efforts to establish a torture commission is Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. As a member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee, Whitehouse is privy to information about interrogations he can't yet share. Still, regarding a potential torture commission, he told Salon, "I am convinced it is going to happen." In fact, his fervor on the issue was palpable. When asked if there is a lot the public still does not know about these issues during the Bush administration, his eyes grew large and he nodded slowly. "Stay on this," he said. "This is going to be big."
Whitehouse admitted he had not discussed the plan yet with President Obama, who has been notably wishy-washy on the notion since taking office. On the one hand, Obama has consistently said that "my administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture." Yet on the other hand, he has insisted that "nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen; but that generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards."
According to Whitehouse, current politics dictate that Congress should take the lead on establishing a torture commission. "When you look at the economic meltdown that [Obama] was left by the Bush administration, you can see why he would want to reassure the American public that he is out there looking at these problems and trying to solve them and not focusing on the sins of the past," he said.
Whitehouse, however, predicted that Obama would not object to a torture commission moving forward in Congress. Besides, he said, "When push comes to shove, we are the legislative branch of government. We have oversight responsibilities. And we don't need the executive branch's approval to look into these things just as a constitutional matter."
Plans to establish the commission still remain in their infancy, as senators and staff look at previous panels, such as the 9-11 Commission, and investigations following Watergate. Whitehouse, a former U.S. attorney, noted that a torture commission might need the power to immunize witnesses on a case-by-case basis. The prospect of future prosecutions, he said, are beside the point. Most important was putting a spotlight on abuses committed by the Bush administration.
"We have this American government, which has an architecture and a shape and a system that drives it and constrains it and that keeps it honest," he said. "And what happened is that the Bush administration figured out a lot of ways to tunnel through the walls and sneak over the fences. So now we need to go back and say, 'We have got to plant those walls deeper so you can not tunnel under them.' We've got to spotlight how they did it," Whitehouse explained. "The ultimate goal in this is to protect and enhance American democracy."
Last week, retired Maj. Gen. Tony Taguba, known for conducting an honest investigation of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, discussed his support for such a commission in an exclusive interview with Salon. Taguba joined a group of former high-level diplomats and law enforcement officials who also announced their support for a torture commission late last week, along with 18 rights groups.
During that interview, Taguba stated that any review must include close analysis of claims from Bush administration officials that abusive interrogations worked. "Some of those activities were actually not effective and those who thought so were in the academic or pristine settings of their offices," Taguba said. "What would they know?"
Whitehouse agreed, and depicted as ironic the fact that some members of the intelligence community saw themselves as "the Lance Armstrongs of interrogation," while some members of the military objected to abuse as ineffective. "In fact, the exact opposite was true," Whitehouse said about such claims from the CIA."It was amateur hour with them, and the career, tough, serious military interrogators said that this just was not effective," he said. "But it is important to prove the point, because they keep saying, 'We saved lives. We interrupted plans. We did this, that and the other.'" Whitehouse added, "Well, when you drill down, there is never a fact there. It turns into fog and evasion."
______________________________________
TOMMY:
Here's my thoughts on this latest punk, posing, pussyfooting faggot act by the cowardly "FBI dick sucking clowns" at The Femocratic Party:
1) After I signed a US DOJ OIG--FBI OPR COMPLAINT AND A TEN PAGE MEMO TO SEN GRASSLEY....NOT ONE DUMBFUCK PUNK DEMOCRATIC STAFFER EVER ONCE TALKED TO ME, OR TRIED TO CONTACT ME WITH US MAIL, EMAIL, OR A PHONE CALL.
The democrats had it all...they did little or nothing except protect themselves from the latest FBI WELLSTONE CONSPIRACY TO MURDER ANOTHER...yes another...Democratic Senator (SD US SEN TIM JOHNSON brain stroked with Directed Energy Weapon...US Sen Ted Kennedy brain stroked...Tim Russert heart attacked...Novak brain stroked...Leroy Rogers brainstroked...Jon Van Patten wheeled out of Sioux Valley Hospital).
HOW COME NOT ONE PUSSY FUCKHEAD CLOWN WHORE IDIOT in Holder's DOJ HQ wants info on THE WELLSTONE MURDER, AND THE FBI PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PATRIOT ACT MURDER?
Total silence?
Total silence and appeasement followed by "mucking in the dark" as the APPEASEMENT STRATEGY OF LEAHY, FEINGOLD, BIDEN, SPECTOR, etc!
Now that CHENEY IS GONE, IMPEACHMENT is irrelevent along with PELOSIWHORES'S self serving credibility which "does not exist" in an objective reasonable universe (anything outside the mainstream media D.C. fantasy world is, the reasonable universe commonly agreed upon by most peer reviewed observers).
PELOSI is still in power?
The APPEASEMENT FAGGOTS AT US SEN JUD COMMITTEE...relied upon the usual smoke machine grandstanding that...amounted to nothing.
Witnesses were not sworn in when Spector (the "magic flip flopping human waffle") was in charge of SEN JUD.
Later, when LEAHY was chairing, sworn statements were irrelevant because "nobody used my facts and advice" to go after the nazi treasonous punk scum known as the neocons: BOB MUELLER, GENERAL HAYDEN, GONZO THE SMILING SPIC CHIMP, etc.
I saw Mueller reading off his script and checking off questions asked and answered?
The pretense of significant oversight created by the pussies was obscured by the appeasement that amounted to a surface layer of contention (hearings in 2005-06)...yet...no hard questions were followed up.
Not one punk at US SEN JUD bothered using key words like: HAND OFF METHOD USED BY FBI TO ILLEGALLY LAUNDER ILLEGALLY OBTAINED INFO...OPERATION SLAMMER USED TO CREATE TERRORIST SUSPECTS USED TO LEGALLY STEAL NO BID FRONT LOADED SURVEILLANCE CONTRACT MONEY KICKED BACK TO FBI, US ATTY'S, AND THE LOCAL COPS?
My ten page memo to US SEN GRASSLEY outlined the mysterious "breadth and scope of the NSA TSP"...yet...not one fucking idiot at SEN JUD COMM bothered reading the fucking complaint or memo to Grassley?
(Note: remember the clown pussies at US SEN JUD COMM fagging around wondering "how can the FBI or NSA or DOJ use illegally obtained info?"...IT'S CALLED THE HAND OFF METHOD OF VIOLATING TITLE 18 USC SECTIONS 2510--et.al, section 2517).
HOW COME MORONIC BOUGHT OFF CORRUPT COCKSUCKERS (Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Leahy, Democrats) have no knowledge or interest in THE STATE OF THE SURVEILLANCE POLICE STATE and how it works, and what laws are violated and ignored by a gutless Uncle Tom House Nigger named ERIC HOLDER (a piss poor excuse for an educated black man from the mean streets of BED STUY, new york)?
NO CHARGES, NO GRAND JURY, NO CONTACT WITH CRIME VICTIM from Holder?
Please explain Mr House Nigger Holder...what the fuck are you doing, and not doing?
2) IF THE PUNKS, LIARS, AND INCOMPETENT WEASELS AT THE DNC, AND US SEN...would not talk to me or use "specific facts and personal pronouns" from my 47 page complaint when the issues were hot and IMPEACHMENT WAS IN REACH...then...uh...WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE FUCKING NEXT BOGUS CLOWN ROUND OF OBSTRUCTION IS GONNA GET AT THE WHOLE TRUTH WITH SWORN STATEMENTS?
Too little, too late.
Who the fuck is gonna stick his neck out again...while BOB MUELLER IS STILL RUNNING HIS GESTAPO WITH NO OVERSIGHT AND NO CHARGES FILED ON BOB AND HIS WIND UP TOY ROBOTS WHO facilitated the CONSPIRACY TO TAMPER WITH A COOPERATING WITNESS WHO ACTUALLY STUCK HIS NECK OUT ON THE SOUTH DAKOTA DETONATORS used by FBI TO BLOW UP THE CHILDREN AT THE MURRAY BUILDING.
OK CITY is linked to 9/11.
HOLDER at DOJ, drew up TRENTADUE AND TRENTADON'TS as a memo to facilitate the OBSTRUCTION OF THE TRENTADUE DEPOSITION OF TERRY NICHOLS who is likely to swear under oath about MCVEIGH'S FBI HANDLER who facilitated the treasonous false flag attack on April 19th, 1995?!@#?!
Not one punk named ERIC "house nigger" HOLDER or BARACK "the spear chucker puppet on a string" OBAMA has an interest or self serving prerogative to "hold fed grand juries that shove the law down Bob Mueller's fat faggot face".
Yet...the dems think someone is dumb enough to testify on TORTURE?
I WAS TORTURED AFTER SIGNING A DOJ OIG--FBI OPR COMPLAINT.
NO CHARGES FROM HOUSE NIGGER HOLDER?
NO FED GRAND JURY WITH MUELLER AND PLUTA SUBPOENAED, with me...showing the punks at DOJ "where the lie is" and how "FBI ALWAYS LIES BY OMISSION".
3) Not one pussified faggot idiot whore at DEMOCRATIC CLOWN ACT has the guts to use personal pronouns when discussing TORTURE, WAR COMMISSIONS ACT, TORTURE MEMOS, TIMELINE EVIDENCE, FISA SELLOUT, PATRIOT ACT RENEWAL, MIND CONTROL, OPERATION SLAMMER, SCHOOL SHOOTERS ON A SHELF, DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS, PATRIOT ACT MURDERS IN SOUTH DAKOTA, and DOD CIFA UNIT USING BLACKWATER INC with FBI counterintelligence agent STEVEN PLUTA providing info from my father's FBI 302...etc?
MR ERIC "house nigger" HOLDER...DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE FBI USED THEIR BADGE TO GET INFO FROM MY FATHER, DR DAVID W. BEAN, to locate my attorneys...so that FBI COULD WORK WITH DOD CIFA UNIT AND BLACKWATER TO MURDER AND MAIM MY ATTORNEYS?"
Motive: prevent my filing of a civil suit and MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
CLEARLY outside the scope of any reasonable FBI perogative.
MUELLER GOES TO JAIL...or he has to pay in the fucking streets, just like I did.
4) IF THE DEMOCRATS cannot get Mueller fired for cause (MUELLER DOES NOT WORK PATRIOT ACT MURDERS, ATTEMPTED MURDERS, CONSPIRACIES TO TAMPER WITH WITNESSES) then...just how are the Democratic cocksuckers gonna "protect witnesses" from being murdered with directed energy weapons, stalking, interstate stalking, mind control chipping, malicious prosecutions based on frame ups and Brady violations....etc?
YOU WILL NOT GET ANYWHERE unless MUELLER IS FIRED TODAY?!
MUELLER WILL NOT RESIGN until his is indicted.
MUELLER CANNOT BE INDICTED until HOLDER FAGGOT holds a fed grand jury.
If this bogus Torture hearing is serious about the real facts and real personal pronouns...then....The US SEN JUD COMM will have to "stop scripting Mueller's testimony" OR......THE SUBPOENAED WITNESSES ARE GONNA END UP DEAD OR FRAMED ON BOGUS CHARGES.
Mueller will again use his "pattern and practise" of obstructing justice by...doing nothing while also "unilaterally rescinding the social contract with America" while Blackwater makes more money murdering and maiming more witnesses.
WHAT PLAN DO THE DEMOCRATIC CLOWNS AT DOJ HQ HAVE...to protect witnesses?
That plan, must include prosecutions.
Without Mueller going to jail with PLUTA, HELLER, REYNALDS, LONG, SRSTKA, MCMAHON, MULLINS, etc.........there will be no protection.
WITHOUT DOD CIFA UNIT and there contractors BLACKWATER INC going to jail...there will be no protection of witnesses before and after testifying...right Mr Holder?
NO ZERO TOLERANCE CRIMINAL CHARGES...means...no protection for witnesses before and after testimony...right?
BLUE WALL OF SILENCE FROM LEAHY on protecting witnesses by destroying Mueller with his own sworn statements...right Pat?
LEAHY AND HOLDER...are both worthless in my book, and I ain't joing a jerkoff clown idiot session without any sort of contact with HOLDER and his staff FILING CHARGES ON MUELLER--DOD CIFA UNIT--BLACKWATER INC.
I TOLD HOLDER AND OBAMA along time ago...OFFER MUELLER A POLYGRAPH in your office...then...PICK YOUR OWN POLYGRAPH EXAMINER, AND PERSONALLY GRILL THIS CORRUPT DUMBFUCK UNTIL HE TELLS ALL THE TRUTH.
FLIP MUELLER TO TELL ALL HE KNOWS.
FORCE THE FUCKHEAD TO STAND UP FOR ONCE IN HIS SECRET CORRUPT PUNK LIFE.
PUT THE HEAT ON BOB.
BREAK THAT FAT FUCKHEAD DOWN.
If Mueller refuses to be polygraphed...he is a National Secuirty risk, and must be fired.
Then, you got to get someone at FBI HQ who you can trust.
Good luck finding an FBI punk who plays the game by the rules.
That should have been obvious to Obama last month.
Obama, Holder...dumbfucks...did nothing and will do nothing to remove fuckhead Mueller.
The problem is FBI FIELD AGENTS facilitating the PATRIOT ACT MURDERS OF DEMOCRATS AND WITNESSES AND LAWYERS.
That is the only avenue of suspicion that HOLDER AND OBAMA should be working on...no?
5) I CAN DESTROY ROBERT SWAN MUELLER, III, AND THE FBI HQ'S CREDIBILITY if I testify.
Why should I stick my neck out when...there is no protection for witnesses who volunteer to take polygraphs?
6) LEAHY DID NOT USE SPECIFIC FACTS AND PERSONAL PRONOUNS in previous bogus pussified grandstanding (The NSA TSP hearings)? LEAHY had all he needed yet...Leahy preferred to "cut back room deals" secretly resulting in no benefit for America.
And, I point out...Leahy was the only guy who was half way serious when doing oversight on shithead Mueller's field faggots?
You can bet, LEAHY DOES NOT HAVE A PROTECTION PLAN TO MAKE SURE WITNESSES LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO TESTIFY.
You can bet ERIC "house nigger" HOLDER never heard of section 1512, 1513 prohibiting the TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES...right Eric?
THE PROTECTION OF WITNESSES SHOULD BE A MAJOR CONCERN FOR HOLDER who also...has obviously jumped on the "see no evil bandwagon" preferring to do what? for whom?
Nothing from the punks on protecting witnesses...right Mr "audacity of hope" Obama?
7) A better hearing and dissemination of info...is right here at this blog.
If you want info, this is where to go, not at a grandstanding jerk off punk session that will very likely end up doing nothing except create the pretext for MORE PATRIOT ACT MURDERS, CRIMES, AND ATTEMPTED MURDERS TO SILENCE DISSENT AND WHISTLE BLOWING COOPERATING WITNESSES.
Mr Holder...do you want to talk to TAMM to reassure him "he has nothing to worry about"?
8) The punk pussified faggot act (democrats)...have...used some info from this blog to get Gonzalez fired ("just what was the straw that broke the camel's back after Gonzo withered and dodged alot of hearings?")....yet, they don't seem to want to talk to me as a witness?
They don't have the guts...do they?...to talk to a fucking witness?
I never got a response in the form of an email, US Mail, phone call?
My testimony would have blown open the NSA TSP hearings?
9) LEAHY conducted a "secret quid pro quo" deal that...uh...did nothing except force GONZO to admit in front of the US SENJUD COMM that "...the NSA TSP program was done...".
With no charges...that meant that "The NSA TSP was renamed" and continued under another flag.
LEAHY negotiating as an appeasement pussy...got nothing.
Anybody victimized by the NSA--FBI madhouse...got nothing.
No hearing from Leahy on NSA TSP.
10) No interest in DASCHLE CAMPAIGN WIRETAPPING, or MICHELLE TAPKEN 'S TESTIMONY?
HOW CAN LEAHY DO ANYTHING...without personally subpoenaeing Tapken to take her statement under oath?
11) With MUELLER STILL EMPLOYED AT FBI HQ...we are led to believe that the punk democrats are gonna do the hearing the way it is supposed to be done (follow specific facts, call all witnesses who committed crimes against me, my family, an and my known associates, call SD US ATTY MICHELLE TAPKEN, call MINNESOTA US ATTY THOMAS HEFFLEFINGER, ask the questions I tell you to ask with witnesses under oath...right? )...when the democrats HAVE ALREADY PROVEN THEMSELVES TO BE INCOMPETENT, WEAK, UNINFORMED, EASILY MISLEAD, AND HAPPILY FAT, CORRUPT AND WORTHLESS TO AMERICA?
Too little, too late.
No protection, no witnesses.
No protection, no charges...no THOMAS S. BEAN TESTIFYING.
END OF STORY.
FBI PUNK MUELLER WINS, because he "did not do his job" and fagged around protecting CHENEY--DUMSFIELD--BLACKWATER--DOD CIFA UNIT--NSA 902ND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE UNIT.
MUELLER WINS by doing nothing except "facilitating his own benefit" (SILENCING DISSENT AND WITNESSES).
OBAMA'S FBI DIRECTOR gets away with TAMPERING WITH COOPERATING WITNESSES by chipping, Torture, Mind Control, OPERATION SLAMMER, and use of DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS ??????
HOW IS RICH GORDON A TERRORIST?
How is CHRISTINA MOORE a Terrorist?
I gave MUELLER FAGGOT all he needed to make an arrest on both of these murders?
Nothing from HOLDER?
Nothing from OBAMA CLOWN?
12) My advice to all witnesses to this bogus Torture hearing:
DO NOT TESTIFY...YOU WILL BE DEAD OR BRAIN STROKED IN THE HOSPITAL FROM THE USE OF A DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPON.
WHY STICK YOUR NECK OUT FOR THIS FAGGOT PUNK DEMOCRATIC BOZO ACT?
HOLDER IS A PUSSY.
OBAMA IS A JOKE.
BOTH have no respect for civil liberties.
Neither fuckhead has stuck his toe in the water, while I was doing the backstroke for 22 years.
BEAN is no chump.
BEAN IS NOT STICKING HIS NECK TO GET WHACKED, FRAMED, AND HARASSED.
DON'T ever stick your neck out in pursuit of justice AS LONG AS MUELLER IS AT FBI (where field faggots OBSTRUCT JUSTICE by subverting their prerogative to investigate CONSPIRACIES TO COMMIT FED CRIMES OF VIOLENCE WHILE THE RADICAL RIGHT WING SHADOW GOVERNMENT SILENCES WITNESSES).
IT ALL COMES DOWN ON MUELLER'S LYING CORRUPT FAT HEAD.
FBI MODUS IS...do nothing and benefit from looking the other way.
FBI MODUS is...remain deliberately indifferent, and benefit from the neutralization of dissent while FBI OBSTRUCTS JUSTICE in a thousand different ways.
That is Bob Mueller's modus.
He covered it all up by doing nothing.
13) The country is dead on arrival.
The Democrats are too little, too late...and I sure the fuck am not gonna stick my neck out for dumb fucks who have already fagged around too much.
14) I REFUSE TO COOPERATE WITH THE CLOWN PUNK PUSSIES known as democrats.
GO AHEAD AND SUBPOENA ME YOU DUMB GUTLESS FAGGOT PUNK PUSSIES.
YOU KNOW AND I KNOW, HOLDER IS A JOKE, AND WILL NOT PROSECUTE THE POLICE STATE.
SO TELL ME...WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO ASSOCIATE WITH THIS CLOWN ACT?
I've seen these fuckheadcrats join the conspiracy to do nothing, while also fagging around the major facts and issues?
I HAVE SEEN DEMOCRATS SCRIPT HEARINGS for the benefit of A LOWLIFE, MURDERING, DRUG DEALING, SWINDLING LYING GUTLESS MARINE CORP SHITHEAD NAMED ROBERT SWAN MUELLER, III, (a key player in this outrage).
15) FUCKHEAD MUELLER AND HIS FBI SPECIAL AGENTS HAVE ONGOING PROBLEMS WITH THEIR PATTERN AND PRACTISE OF "committing overt acts as part of conspiracies to violate" numerous federal laws memorialized in my US DOJ OIG--FBI OPR COMPLAINT?
FBI OPR did not respond to the complaint?
IF MUELLER IS AT FBI HQ...you can forget about any witnesses living long enough to tell the truth.
Bob knows that.
16) THE PROBLEM IS BOB MUELLER.
THE PROBLEM HAS ALWAYS BEEN FBI HQ.
THE PROBLEM IS GETTING MUELLER IN THE FED PEN FOR NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS OF THE FED CRIMINAL CODE.
NOT ONE PUSSIFIED FAGGOT IDIOT WHORE FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY...has shown interest in MUELLER'S FED CRIMINAL CAREER as a shadow government pussy and liar who covered Darth Cheney's criminal flanks in South Dakota.
17) MR LEAHY...LETS SEE YOU SUBPOENAE BEAN TO TESTIFY.
NO SCRIPTS.
NO IMMUNITY.
NO BULLSHIT.
LET'S SEE LEAHY DO HIS FUCKING CLOWN JOB FOR ONCE.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
CIA still crazy after all these years: BOLIVIA, ECUADOR are hot ops right now
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2009/02/cia-operating-illicitly-in-bolivia-and.html
CIA Accused of Operating Illicitly in Bolivia and Ecuador
Correa: US diplomat directed CIA in Ecuador
QUITO, Ecuador (AP) — Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa accused an expelled U.S. diplomat of directing CIA operations in the South American nation, but offered no proof. Mark Sullivan, the U.S. Embassy's first secretary in the office of regional affairs, was declared a "persona non grata" on Wednesday and ordered to leave the country within 48 hours because of what the government called "unacceptable meddling" in Ecuadorean affairs.
Ecuadorean officials claim he disputed the transfer of a senior police investigator amid a growing diplomatic spat over Washington's aid to the South American nation.
Last month, Ecuador ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement attache Armando Astorga expelled for supposed interference, although Washington said Astorga had already left the country when his assignment ended. ...
Ecuador's Foreign Minister Fander Falconi, right, announces during a news conference that Ecuador's government expelled Mark Sullivan, a US Embassy official, for alleged interference in internal affairs, Quito, Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2009. To the left Interior Minister Gustavo Jalkh
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales, both leftist allies of Correa, also have been critical of Washington and warned of alleged CIA operations in their countries.
Morales accused the agency last week of infiltrating state energy company YPFB.
"Regrettably there has been a CIA presence in Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos," Morales said Friday.
"Some of our companeros have been caught up in this external infiltration," Morales said, referring to a scandal over the robbery and killing of a businessman. Investigators suspect the $450,000 in cash stolen was intended as a bribe for YPFB officials.
Morales did not offer any proof either, but said the government will name alleged infiltrators "at any moment."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmmx1kqv2xD-vKb4MBwu6HltV9YwD96GQ8503
•••
Morales denounces infiltration of CIA in YPFB
abi.bo
[Translation]
Chapare, Cochabamba, Feb 20 (ABI).- On Friday, President Morales denounced infiltration caused by United States Central Intelligence Agency against YPFB (Public Oilfield Company), which is nowadays investigated because acts of corruption.
"Lamentably CIA was involved in YPFB and some MAS’ members have been involved in this infiltration," Morales denounced in a meeting in Chapare.
President Morales, who is returning from Russia and France, said that CIA bugged YPFB, a State Oilfield where ex-President Santos Ramirez, ex-member of MAS, was accused and arrested for having caused corruption.
"After their failures, when they tried to take me out of Government, through repeal referendum and civil coup, now they are attacking through YPFB."
Ex-President of YPFB, Santos Ramirez is accused for having illegally contracted a illegal Company in order to create a Gas Industry in Santa Cruz, the cost was $ 86 millions.
This case was investigated because casually a Businessman, Jorge O’Connor D’ Arlach was shot and murdered in La Paz by criminals that stole him $ 450.000.
Justice has evidences about a probable act of corruption in favor of Ramirez.
"Proximally, we will denounce involved people of CIA, however these corrupts are defending legally criminals and corrupts."
http://abi.bo/index.php?i=noticias_texto&j=200902202216423x
Posted by Alex Constantine at 1:09 PM
_________________________________________________________________________
http://sutherlandsalute.blogspot.com/2009/02/does-obama-know-what-cia-is-doing-to.html
Venezuela Arrests Soldiers Over Alleged Army Plot, Chavez Says
By Matthew Walter
Feb. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said soldiers suspected of conspiring in a plot to destabilize the government were arrested, adding the situation is under control.
Chavez, a self-proclaimed socialist who has accused the political opposition of trying to overthrow his government since he survived a brief coup in 2002, said the country’s intelligence agency uncovered a plan to infiltrate the Miraflores presidential palace. He made the comments yesterday on state television.
“We’ve arrested some soldiers, and they remain detained, who were in contact with a solder on the run in the U.S., protected by the U.S. government, sending messages about a so- called Operation Independence,” Chavez said.
The Venezuelan president is wrapping up a political campaign to amend the constitution to allow him to seek re-election as many times as he likes. The issue will go before voters on Feb. 15 and Chavez has said the political opposition has been planning violence in the country should it lose the election.
Venezuela is the biggest oil exporter in the Western Hemisphere and the fourth-biggest overseas supplier of the commodity to the U.S.
“We have the situation under control,” he said. “The country should be at peace.”
The government recovered rocket launchers and explosives that were part of the plot, Chavez said.
The president last September said there was a plot within the Venezuelan military to assassinate him and carry out a coup at the start of campaigns for state and city elections.
A poll by Caracas-based Datanalisis shows Venezuelans are evenly split before this weekend’s vote. In a January survey, 51.5 percent supported the amendment, while 48.1 percent were opposed. The survey of 1,300 people had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.72 percentage points.
Chavez said any plot to overthrow him will be defeated.
“The Venezuelan bourgeoisie will regret it,” he said. “The conspirators against the government will regret their campaign of aggression, of violence.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Walter in Caracas at mwalter4@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: February 12, 2009 01:51 EST
_____________________________________________________
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-assassination-of-hugo-chavez/
The Assassination of Hugo Chavez
by Greg Palast
Reporting from Lago Agrio, Ecuador
Wednesday November 14
Before The Lord spoke unto Pat Robertson and told him to endorse Rudy Giuliani, family man, for President, the Reverend got a message that higher powers wanted him to arrange a hit on another President:
"Hugo Chavez thinks we're trying to assassinate him. I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
Robertson has a tough time separating Church and Hate. But when the vicious vicar declared it was time to take out the President of Venezuela, he was simply channeling the wishes of the Supreme Authority, Dick Cheney.
I'm asking you to see the story they don't want you to see in the USA: from the original investigations filmed for BBC Television, "The Assassination of Hugo"- a special DVD documentary by myself and Rick Rowley. NOT for general release - ONLY available as a gift to donors to the not-for-profit Palast Investigative Fund. Check out the trailer for the film here.
Why must they kill Chavez?
With the help of guerrila cameraman Rick Rowley ("Fourth World War"), I flew to Caracas to get the answer - from Chavez himself. I also talked to the guy who took Chavez hostage in 2002. (I had to wear a wire for that one.)
The answer is right underneath Chavez' feet. Oil. How much? According to the inside documents that fell into my hands from the Department of Energy - LOTS of oil, five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.
The DVD includes Chavez himself, in our extended exclusive interviews. We go over the Bush plans - for his oil, and for his "elimination." Sing along with the crooning champion of the poor - or, as George Bush titles him, "a demagogue awash with oil money."
CIA Accused of Operating Illicitly in Bolivia and Ecuador
Correa: US diplomat directed CIA in Ecuador
QUITO, Ecuador (AP) — Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa accused an expelled U.S. diplomat of directing CIA operations in the South American nation, but offered no proof. Mark Sullivan, the U.S. Embassy's first secretary in the office of regional affairs, was declared a "persona non grata" on Wednesday and ordered to leave the country within 48 hours because of what the government called "unacceptable meddling" in Ecuadorean affairs.
Ecuadorean officials claim he disputed the transfer of a senior police investigator amid a growing diplomatic spat over Washington's aid to the South American nation.
Last month, Ecuador ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement attache Armando Astorga expelled for supposed interference, although Washington said Astorga had already left the country when his assignment ended. ...
Ecuador's Foreign Minister Fander Falconi, right, announces during a news conference that Ecuador's government expelled Mark Sullivan, a US Embassy official, for alleged interference in internal affairs, Quito, Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2009. To the left Interior Minister Gustavo Jalkh
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales, both leftist allies of Correa, also have been critical of Washington and warned of alleged CIA operations in their countries.
Morales accused the agency last week of infiltrating state energy company YPFB.
"Regrettably there has been a CIA presence in Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos," Morales said Friday.
"Some of our companeros have been caught up in this external infiltration," Morales said, referring to a scandal over the robbery and killing of a businessman. Investigators suspect the $450,000 in cash stolen was intended as a bribe for YPFB officials.
Morales did not offer any proof either, but said the government will name alleged infiltrators "at any moment."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmmx1kqv2xD-vKb4MBwu6HltV9YwD96GQ8503
•••
Morales denounces infiltration of CIA in YPFB
abi.bo
[Translation]
Chapare, Cochabamba, Feb 20 (ABI).- On Friday, President Morales denounced infiltration caused by United States Central Intelligence Agency against YPFB (Public Oilfield Company), which is nowadays investigated because acts of corruption.
"Lamentably CIA was involved in YPFB and some MAS’ members have been involved in this infiltration," Morales denounced in a meeting in Chapare.
President Morales, who is returning from Russia and France, said that CIA bugged YPFB, a State Oilfield where ex-President Santos Ramirez, ex-member of MAS, was accused and arrested for having caused corruption.
"After their failures, when they tried to take me out of Government, through repeal referendum and civil coup, now they are attacking through YPFB."
Ex-President of YPFB, Santos Ramirez is accused for having illegally contracted a illegal Company in order to create a Gas Industry in Santa Cruz, the cost was $ 86 millions.
This case was investigated because casually a Businessman, Jorge O’Connor D’ Arlach was shot and murdered in La Paz by criminals that stole him $ 450.000.
Justice has evidences about a probable act of corruption in favor of Ramirez.
"Proximally, we will denounce involved people of CIA, however these corrupts are defending legally criminals and corrupts."
http://abi.bo/index.php?i=noticias_texto&j=200902202216423x
Posted by Alex Constantine at 1:09 PM
_________________________________________________________________________
http://sutherlandsalute.blogspot.com/2009/02/does-obama-know-what-cia-is-doing-to.html
Venezuela Arrests Soldiers Over Alleged Army Plot, Chavez Says
By Matthew Walter
Feb. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said soldiers suspected of conspiring in a plot to destabilize the government were arrested, adding the situation is under control.
Chavez, a self-proclaimed socialist who has accused the political opposition of trying to overthrow his government since he survived a brief coup in 2002, said the country’s intelligence agency uncovered a plan to infiltrate the Miraflores presidential palace. He made the comments yesterday on state television.
“We’ve arrested some soldiers, and they remain detained, who were in contact with a solder on the run in the U.S., protected by the U.S. government, sending messages about a so- called Operation Independence,” Chavez said.
The Venezuelan president is wrapping up a political campaign to amend the constitution to allow him to seek re-election as many times as he likes. The issue will go before voters on Feb. 15 and Chavez has said the political opposition has been planning violence in the country should it lose the election.
Venezuela is the biggest oil exporter in the Western Hemisphere and the fourth-biggest overseas supplier of the commodity to the U.S.
“We have the situation under control,” he said. “The country should be at peace.”
The government recovered rocket launchers and explosives that were part of the plot, Chavez said.
The president last September said there was a plot within the Venezuelan military to assassinate him and carry out a coup at the start of campaigns for state and city elections.
A poll by Caracas-based Datanalisis shows Venezuelans are evenly split before this weekend’s vote. In a January survey, 51.5 percent supported the amendment, while 48.1 percent were opposed. The survey of 1,300 people had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.72 percentage points.
Chavez said any plot to overthrow him will be defeated.
“The Venezuelan bourgeoisie will regret it,” he said. “The conspirators against the government will regret their campaign of aggression, of violence.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Walter in Caracas at mwalter4@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: February 12, 2009 01:51 EST
_____________________________________________________
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-assassination-of-hugo-chavez/
The Assassination of Hugo Chavez
by Greg Palast
Reporting from Lago Agrio, Ecuador
Wednesday November 14
Before The Lord spoke unto Pat Robertson and told him to endorse Rudy Giuliani, family man, for President, the Reverend got a message that higher powers wanted him to arrange a hit on another President:
"Hugo Chavez thinks we're trying to assassinate him. I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
Robertson has a tough time separating Church and Hate. But when the vicious vicar declared it was time to take out the President of Venezuela, he was simply channeling the wishes of the Supreme Authority, Dick Cheney.
I'm asking you to see the story they don't want you to see in the USA: from the original investigations filmed for BBC Television, "The Assassination of Hugo"- a special DVD documentary by myself and Rick Rowley. NOT for general release - ONLY available as a gift to donors to the not-for-profit Palast Investigative Fund. Check out the trailer for the film here.
Why must they kill Chavez?
With the help of guerrila cameraman Rick Rowley ("Fourth World War"), I flew to Caracas to get the answer - from Chavez himself. I also talked to the guy who took Chavez hostage in 2002. (I had to wear a wire for that one.)
The answer is right underneath Chavez' feet. Oil. How much? According to the inside documents that fell into my hands from the Department of Energy - LOTS of oil, five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.
The DVD includes Chavez himself, in our extended exclusive interviews. We go over the Bush plans - for his oil, and for his "elimination." Sing along with the crooning champion of the poor - or, as George Bush titles him, "a demagogue awash with oil money."
CIA's OPERATION WOODSMAN: stealing companies using bankruptcy rulings
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=141853
Operation Woodsman
Operation Woodsman was a CIA operation that targeted specific companies, forcing the owners out and taking over the assets. Russbacher described several of these operations in which he himself was directly involved. Information used to carry out Operation Woodsman, such as the financial condition of targeted companies, could be obtained by the CIA through a database called the Black Flag file, which is located on a Cray computer in Washington and which is accessed through a government Sentry Terminal (government-secure computer). The Cray computer also contains a list of federal judges, trustees, law firms, and lawyers who covertly work to carry out Justice Department and CIA activities (such as the San Francisco law firm used against me in the sham California action). Referring to Judicial Involvement
Russbacher repeated what he had described to me during the past few years about the role of federal judges in the corruption: “More than fifty percent of the judges are compromised through secret bribes or retainers.” The bribes take many forms. Sometimes through gambling chips at Atlantic City and Las Vegas casinos, in the form of gratuities, sometimes through second and third parties, inheritances, anything that will whitewash the funds in the property that is given to the judges or trustees. Russbacher stated that these funds are often hidden in offshore financial accounts, adding:
Let’s say it is property or stock certificates. We’ll have phony documentation set up and put in place and show where the stock certificates or the property or the legacy came from. Even if we have to create our own trust with which to do it. It’s not like we don’t have legally capable counsel available. Now understand this too: these judges received this heavy money regardless of the fact that they have cases pending or not. They get paid whether they do something for us or not.
Russbacher elaborated on the procedure for gaining access to the Cray computer in Washington, telling how the identification number is first entered and then the security code.
Russbacher stated that he learned about Operation Woodsman when he was assigned to CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia. “Every damn thing, every crooked thing that the DOJ has done,” he said, “involving any and all law firms, is registered under the code name that I have given you.” Russbacher continued:
Our intent was to take over the tangible assets of the operating license and licenses, we go through the predetermination hearing with the judge, trustee and the simple debtors, and then we buy time to reorganize the lines, and transport capabilities. In other words, we use them for ourselves, these little feeder airlines; we try to keep them alive anywhere from six months to a year and a half.
Slowly we set our operations and leverage to where the existing financial records are changed to reflect prior debt encumbrance. We falsify the records. We take an existing carrier, their routes, their equipment, push our schedule and freight manifest through their licenses, and then we ... we have no interest in developing a good business or making a go of it, out of the indentured one that we have taken over.
Russbacher described how the system uses lawyer spotters throughout the United States to identify companies that have large equities but have cash problems CIA proprietaries buy up the company’s receivables and indebted ness, and force the company to sign papers making them susceptible to immediate takeover if their financial situation deteriorates. The CIA proprietary then acts to make this happen, after which the owners lose control. Chapter 11 would be included in Operation Woodsman.
The CIA may loot the company and then put it into Chapter 7 or 11 bankruptcy courts, where several options are available to make off with the assets or to have the indebtedness discharged. Russbacher told how the CIA has about seventy percent of the trustees and many of the federal judges in bankruptcy courts on retainer. He also elaborated upon the practice known as “drop-offs” that force companies into Chapter 11, involving companies with valuable assets that have a cash crunch.
Russbacher described some of the company takeovers in which he was directly involved, naming Midway Airlines, Southern Air Transport, and Frontier Airlines. In some cases, the targeted company would be liquidated and, as in the case of Frontier Airlines, the aircraft would go to a CIA proprietary. In Frontier’s example, most of the aircraft went to the CIA proprietary, Southwest Airlines. In the case of Southern Air Transport, the targeted corporation was kept as a CIA proprietary.
According to Russbacher, referring to the CIA takeover of Chicago based Midway Airlines during the last year of its existence, Midway Airlines was first targeted in 1986 because it had a high debt-to-asset ratio, making the airline vulnerable to the takeover scheme of Operation Woodsman. CIA assets began purchasing Midway’s debt with the intention of taking over the company and then liquidating the assets in Chapter 7.
Russbacher told how Midway tried to get absorbed by another carrier, Northwest Airlines, and that the CIA blocked it, as it wanted Midway’s aircraft. The CIA got Justice Department lawyers and the IRS to take actions against the airline through criminal and tax proceedings through mostly bogus criminal and contempt charges, explaining:
We put together a bunch of phony allegations, mismanagement of funds, possible fraud. Ninety-five percent of it is totally untrue and unfounded, but the five percent that does remain true and factual are at the forefront, and you push those. Some of the directorships on the Board of Directors were subverted and suborned to CIA tactics.
The plan by Northwest Airlines to absorb Midway fell through after both Midway and Northwest were pressured by government agencies acting on behalf of the CIA. This scheme caused Midway to go out of business, so the airline’s Boeing 737 aircraft went to another covert CIA operation: Southwest Airlines.
Russbacher described similar CIA takeovers that developed into larger companies instead of being liquidated for their assets. These included Southern Air Transport (which started out as Savannah Charter Airlines); Central Airlines of Fort Worth; Allegheny Airlines; and others. Russbacher explained that some of the directors had their own businesses and that it was easy for the CIA with its control of other government agencies to put pressure on them, adding: “They were not influenced; they were dictated to.”
I asked: “How could they be dictated to?” Russbacher replied: “The director, who has other business interests and probably a business of his own, suddenly finds himself in a financial quandary due to various tactics used by the CIA. We put him under our thumb. If he decides not to play ball, we threaten him with criminal charges.”
This tactic was reportedly used against Charles W. White of Houston, Texas, who was in partnership with CIA-related Jim Bath. When Bath wanted to withdraw $450,000 from a company composed of private investors and use it in a CIA-related operation, and White refused, the power of the courts and covert agencies were misused against White. After many lawsuits, White was financially destroyed.
Russbacher stated that Justice Department lawyers worked hand in hand with the CIA in Operation Woodsman and other schemes, and that the Agency not only has its own private lawyers but “government lawyers on staff as well as the judges. It’s a fixed deck all the way across.” Russbacher described another CIA takeover: “We did the same thing with hotels,” describing how the CIA took over the Intercontinental Hotels (IH) chain from Pan American Corporation through its CIA front, Global Hotel Management out of Basel, Switzerland.
Among the airlines that were liquidated after acquisition were Central Airlines out of Fort Worth (the agency’s first airline acquisition under Operation Woodsman) and Frontier Airlines of Denver. Russbacher described how the CIA created so much friction between Frontier and United Airlines, who had proposed taking over Frontier that the deal fell through. These problems included union and other problems. The Boeing 737s then went to another CIA proprietary, Southwest Airlines.
Russbacher stated that one reason Southwest Airlines was making money (when all the other airlines were losing money) was that the airline has significant income from CIA- generated business that shows as income on its records, but the source of the income was bogus.
Operation Woodsman
Operation Woodsman was a CIA operation that targeted specific companies, forcing the owners out and taking over the assets. Russbacher described several of these operations in which he himself was directly involved. Information used to carry out Operation Woodsman, such as the financial condition of targeted companies, could be obtained by the CIA through a database called the Black Flag file, which is located on a Cray computer in Washington and which is accessed through a government Sentry Terminal (government-secure computer). The Cray computer also contains a list of federal judges, trustees, law firms, and lawyers who covertly work to carry out Justice Department and CIA activities (such as the San Francisco law firm used against me in the sham California action). Referring to Judicial Involvement
Russbacher repeated what he had described to me during the past few years about the role of federal judges in the corruption: “More than fifty percent of the judges are compromised through secret bribes or retainers.” The bribes take many forms. Sometimes through gambling chips at Atlantic City and Las Vegas casinos, in the form of gratuities, sometimes through second and third parties, inheritances, anything that will whitewash the funds in the property that is given to the judges or trustees. Russbacher stated that these funds are often hidden in offshore financial accounts, adding:
Let’s say it is property or stock certificates. We’ll have phony documentation set up and put in place and show where the stock certificates or the property or the legacy came from. Even if we have to create our own trust with which to do it. It’s not like we don’t have legally capable counsel available. Now understand this too: these judges received this heavy money regardless of the fact that they have cases pending or not. They get paid whether they do something for us or not.
Russbacher elaborated on the procedure for gaining access to the Cray computer in Washington, telling how the identification number is first entered and then the security code.
Russbacher stated that he learned about Operation Woodsman when he was assigned to CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia. “Every damn thing, every crooked thing that the DOJ has done,” he said, “involving any and all law firms, is registered under the code name that I have given you.” Russbacher continued:
Our intent was to take over the tangible assets of the operating license and licenses, we go through the predetermination hearing with the judge, trustee and the simple debtors, and then we buy time to reorganize the lines, and transport capabilities. In other words, we use them for ourselves, these little feeder airlines; we try to keep them alive anywhere from six months to a year and a half.
Slowly we set our operations and leverage to where the existing financial records are changed to reflect prior debt encumbrance. We falsify the records. We take an existing carrier, their routes, their equipment, push our schedule and freight manifest through their licenses, and then we ... we have no interest in developing a good business or making a go of it, out of the indentured one that we have taken over.
Russbacher described how the system uses lawyer spotters throughout the United States to identify companies that have large equities but have cash problems CIA proprietaries buy up the company’s receivables and indebted ness, and force the company to sign papers making them susceptible to immediate takeover if their financial situation deteriorates. The CIA proprietary then acts to make this happen, after which the owners lose control. Chapter 11 would be included in Operation Woodsman.
The CIA may loot the company and then put it into Chapter 7 or 11 bankruptcy courts, where several options are available to make off with the assets or to have the indebtedness discharged. Russbacher told how the CIA has about seventy percent of the trustees and many of the federal judges in bankruptcy courts on retainer. He also elaborated upon the practice known as “drop-offs” that force companies into Chapter 11, involving companies with valuable assets that have a cash crunch.
Russbacher described some of the company takeovers in which he was directly involved, naming Midway Airlines, Southern Air Transport, and Frontier Airlines. In some cases, the targeted company would be liquidated and, as in the case of Frontier Airlines, the aircraft would go to a CIA proprietary. In Frontier’s example, most of the aircraft went to the CIA proprietary, Southwest Airlines. In the case of Southern Air Transport, the targeted corporation was kept as a CIA proprietary.
According to Russbacher, referring to the CIA takeover of Chicago based Midway Airlines during the last year of its existence, Midway Airlines was first targeted in 1986 because it had a high debt-to-asset ratio, making the airline vulnerable to the takeover scheme of Operation Woodsman. CIA assets began purchasing Midway’s debt with the intention of taking over the company and then liquidating the assets in Chapter 7.
Russbacher told how Midway tried to get absorbed by another carrier, Northwest Airlines, and that the CIA blocked it, as it wanted Midway’s aircraft. The CIA got Justice Department lawyers and the IRS to take actions against the airline through criminal and tax proceedings through mostly bogus criminal and contempt charges, explaining:
We put together a bunch of phony allegations, mismanagement of funds, possible fraud. Ninety-five percent of it is totally untrue and unfounded, but the five percent that does remain true and factual are at the forefront, and you push those. Some of the directorships on the Board of Directors were subverted and suborned to CIA tactics.
The plan by Northwest Airlines to absorb Midway fell through after both Midway and Northwest were pressured by government agencies acting on behalf of the CIA. This scheme caused Midway to go out of business, so the airline’s Boeing 737 aircraft went to another covert CIA operation: Southwest Airlines.
Russbacher described similar CIA takeovers that developed into larger companies instead of being liquidated for their assets. These included Southern Air Transport (which started out as Savannah Charter Airlines); Central Airlines of Fort Worth; Allegheny Airlines; and others. Russbacher explained that some of the directors had their own businesses and that it was easy for the CIA with its control of other government agencies to put pressure on them, adding: “They were not influenced; they were dictated to.”
I asked: “How could they be dictated to?” Russbacher replied: “The director, who has other business interests and probably a business of his own, suddenly finds himself in a financial quandary due to various tactics used by the CIA. We put him under our thumb. If he decides not to play ball, we threaten him with criminal charges.”
This tactic was reportedly used against Charles W. White of Houston, Texas, who was in partnership with CIA-related Jim Bath. When Bath wanted to withdraw $450,000 from a company composed of private investors and use it in a CIA-related operation, and White refused, the power of the courts and covert agencies were misused against White. After many lawsuits, White was financially destroyed.
Russbacher stated that Justice Department lawyers worked hand in hand with the CIA in Operation Woodsman and other schemes, and that the Agency not only has its own private lawyers but “government lawyers on staff as well as the judges. It’s a fixed deck all the way across.” Russbacher described another CIA takeover: “We did the same thing with hotels,” describing how the CIA took over the Intercontinental Hotels (IH) chain from Pan American Corporation through its CIA front, Global Hotel Management out of Basel, Switzerland.
Among the airlines that were liquidated after acquisition were Central Airlines out of Fort Worth (the agency’s first airline acquisition under Operation Woodsman) and Frontier Airlines of Denver. Russbacher described how the CIA created so much friction between Frontier and United Airlines, who had proposed taking over Frontier that the deal fell through. These problems included union and other problems. The Boeing 737s then went to another CIA proprietary, Southwest Airlines.
Russbacher stated that one reason Southwest Airlines was making money (when all the other airlines were losing money) was that the airline has significant income from CIA- generated business that shows as income on its records, but the source of the income was bogus.
the SHADOW GOVERNMENT: a history of fraud and ELITE DEVIANCE, and we all pay for it. Revolution anyone?
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=141853
CLICK BLOGPOST TITLE ABOVE to get linked to video interview of GUNTHER ROSSBACHER talking about "what he knew" from the inside on S&L FRAUD...similar to our contrived created banking crisis (COVER FOR OUTRAGEOUS THEFT based on EXTORTIONATE LEVERAGE HELD OVER OBAMA'S HEAD).
Admiral Gunther K. Russbacher was a 30 plus year veteran of the CIA and the Office of Naval Intelligence. He was also the co-founder of the print edition of Rumor Mill News.
This short video ONLY gives a sneak peek at what the CIA was doing during the S&L scandal. Gunther does NOT differentiate CIA-Faction 1 from CIA Faction 2. Faction 2 was right in the thick of it... helping Faction 1 loot the S&Ls. The only difference was where the looted money went. Faction 2 stashed it in European Trusts and used it for the next part of their looting plan... the plan to loot the Federal Reserve Banking System.
The next part for Faction Two came during the buildup to the dot.coms. But that's another long story. Let's just stick to the Savings and Loan Scandal.
Here is the Chapter on the Savings and Loans from Rodney Stich's book, DEFRAUDING AMERICA:
HUD Mortgage Insurance Scam
Another aspect of the HUD scams dealt with insurance premiums. People buying properties with mortgages provided by HUD paid mortgage insurance premiums up front for the life of the loan, amounting to several thousands dollars on each HUD transaction. Formerly, the buyer of HUD properties paid their insurance premiums on a monthly basis with their mortgage payments. But in 1983, the same Congress that passed legislation making the looting of savings and loans possible, passed legislation known as “HURRA” (Housing and Urban- Rural Recovery Act), pushed by Philip Winn, one of Denver’s high flyers, requiring the mortgage insurance premiums to be paid up front.
CIA asset Gunther Russbacher described to me how this worked, as he saw when he headed Red Hill Savings and Loan. He said that this was another of the many CIA scams that defrauded the American people of many millions of dollars. It is probable that the CIA involvement in this scam is what kept the Justice Department from prosecuting those guilty of the mortgage premium insurance fraud. Russbacher described how the scram worked:
They were using reinsurance companies with policy premiums that were never paid. Money was paid for the reinsurance but it was never paid [to the reinsurers]. The policy money, the premiums, were never paid in to where the policies were active. American International Groups was one of the big ones [involved in the scam]. Transatlantic Holdings was involved, as well as Transpacific Holdings. Maurice Greenberg, a close associate of Denver’s Leonard Millman, headed some of these companies. Dublin International Insurance was part of AI [American International]. We insured Putnam and Company.
Upon close of escrow, the insurance premiums were to be sent to brokerage companies that would then order the mortgage insurance. Among the companies involved in these activities was the American International Group, headquartered in New York. AIG was at the head of hundreds of companies and trusts throughout the world, and reportedly headed by Maurice Greenberg, a close friend of Denver-based Leonard Millman. AIG owned other companies involved in these activities, including Transatlantic Holdings and Putnam Reinsurance, which are in the reinsurance business.
The HUD mortgages for which up- front mortgage insurance premiums were paid were put into “pools” of mortgage loans with Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), which are then sold off on the secondary market to investors. The up-front insurance premiums were reportedly never sent to the companies that were to provide the insurance protection. When there were large and unexpected numbers of foreclosures during the 1980s, the mortgage insurance did not exist to pay for the large losses. CHAPTER EIGHT
Protected Insiders Looting Savings and Loans
Congress and the Reagan Administration deregulated the savings and loan industry through the Garn-St Germain Act of 1982, which was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on October 15, 1982. As he signed the far-reaching bill, Reagan announced that it was “the most important legislation for financial institutions in 50 years.” He added: “I think we’ve hit the jackpot.” If he meant the jackpot reference for the Mafia, the CIA, and a host of crooks, he was absolutely right. Even the famous bank robber, Willie Sutton, never envisioned such riches.
I had considerable real estate at that time, including motels, hotels, truck stops, golf courses, apartments, and land, and knew the financial frauds that would follow deregulation. It didn’t take any great expertise to predict the consequences, and surely members of Congress and the industry recognized that fact even sooner than I.
Developers, Mafia figures and crooks, started buying small savings and loans in out-of-the-way-places. In that manner they gained access to the Treasury of the United States, permitting them to engage in self- dealings, sham transactions, and massive fraud against the American taxpayer. Deregulation and the concurrent fraud were financially fabulous for many people, fueling massive growth in the real estate industry during the 1980s. The public picked up the price tab in the 1990s, and they would pay for decades, well into the next century. The losses, much of which was outright theft, exceeded the cost of World War II. Never in the history of the United States had such a massive financial debacle occurred, making the American taxpayer the victim of the biggest scam in the nation’s history.
The crooks that held the controlling interests in savings and loan associations paid themselves extravagant salaries, with virtually unlimited expense accounts that bled their companies dry. They made loans to themselves or corporations they owned or controlled and had a fabulous lifestyle that couldn’t possibly be supported by the income of the savings and loans they acquired.
Many sordid details of the savings and loan debacle have never been revealed by the mass media. Crooks, with the help of politicians, Justice Department officials and CIA renegades, stripped the American people of hundreds of billions of dollars. The American economy will eventually feel the effects of this theft, adversely affecting the American people.
Warning Flags Presaging Deregulation
It was no secret to members of Congress what would happen if the savings and loans were deregulated. The consequences of relaxing safeguards were seen elsewhere. For instance, the danger of brokered deposits was evident when serious problems arose in California during the 1960s when these deposits were allowed to reach a high percentage of a financial institution’s deposits, threatening its solvency. Sudden withdrawal of such large sums of money deposited as a block could easily make the institution insolvent. To correct this problem, regulators ordered a cap of five percent of an institution’s total brokered deposits. This restriction remained from 1963 until the limit on brokered deposits was removed in 1982 by the Depository Institutions Deregulation Committee, chaired by Treasury Secretary Donald Regan. This change was enormously profitable to financial institutions dealing in such deposits, including Regan’s prior employer before he joined the Reagan administration.
Brokered deposits consisted of blocks of $100,000 deposits from individual depositors, which was the limit for federal insurance guarantees.98 By dealing in brokered deposits the banks were able to increase their capital and engage in huge fraudulent schemes. The danger arose from the high interest rates and fees needed to acquire them, and these costs were greater than what could be earned by lending the money for safe real estate investments. Just prior to voting for deregulating the savings and loans, the nation’s worst bank failure occurred, which was caused by eliminating safeguards and permitting brokered deposits. The Oklahoma City financial institution, Penn Square Bank, failed in 1982 and brought giant Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company in Chicago to the brink of failure, as well as other lending institutions that had placed large sums of money into Penn Square Bank.
The American taxpayers had to bail out Continental Illinois to the tune of $4.5 billion (plus the interest that is still being paid on the payout). This amount was in addition to the payments made to the insured depositors at Penn Square. It was the largest federal bailout in the nation’s history, and showed the dangers of deregulation and brokered deposits and what could be expected with the subsequent signing of the deregulation act.
Penn Square offered the deposit brokers higher interest rates and substantial brokerage commissions for funds placed with the financial institution, causing brokers to place millions of dollars into the bank on any given day. But the rates and the fees that Penn Square had to pay for these deposits required making loans on high-risk investments. Further, the continual losses due to high costs of the funds and the inadequacy of returns on these funds required a continuing infusion of money to continue the Ponzi-like scheme.
Common sense and the history of failures made obvious what would happen when Congress voted for deregulation. But many of those who voted for deregulating the savings and loans were recipients of large financial contributions (i.e., bribes).
With brokered deposits there was no money available to make normal home loans; the spread was too much between the rate that homeowners could pay and the rate the savings and loans had to pay for the brokered funds.
The primary problem of deregulation came when the lending institution engaged in self-dealing, land-flips, sham loans, and many other devices used to carry out the massive fraud. All this was obvious to anyone close to the industry, as were members of Congress. But the immediate financial benefits to those voting for deregulation, the law firms and public relations firms, easily took precedence over the harm inflicted upon the United States and the American people, and this attitude prevails throughout these pages.
Every Common-sense Warning Sign Ignored
Some of the practices that could be expected to occur, and which did occur after deregulation, included:
1. Inflating the value of properties through land flips, whereby a parcel of land was “resold” numerous times, sometimes on the same day. Each time the new “buyer” paid a higher price. In that way, a borrower could indicate the land was worth far more than it actually was and obtain a larger loan than the property was worth. Oftentimes no payments would be made on the loan after receiving the loan proceeds, and the property allowed to go into foreclosure. The borrower then walked away with the difference between the purchase price of the property and the loan proceeds. In many cases this constituted millions of dollars
2. Making a loan to a controlled or a dummy corporation far beyond the value of the property, and then let the loan go into default, at which time it would be abandoned.
3. Making a loan that was not intended to be repaid to a controlled corporation. Then when the loan and interest payments are due, make a larger loan on the property to “pay off” the prior loan and accumulated interest, thus showing a sham profit. The loan would be shown as a performing loan on the books rather than a loan in default.
4. Swapping bad loans between cooperating financial institutions and showing the loans as performing loans on the books.
5. Spending lavishly on aircraft, vacation homes, trips, and other expensive life styles and charging it to business expenses. An honestly operated business would not incur such charges when the business was operating in the red.
6. Paying inordinately high salaries to themselves and providing themselves with bonuses when bad non- performing loans are renewed or traded for other bad loans with cooperating institutions.
7. Making sham loans on greatly overvalued real estate owned or controlled by the lending institution, with borrowers never intending to repay the loans.
8. Hiring former federal regulators at exorbitant salaries for their influence- peddling abilities and knowledge, to assist in circumventing regulatory protections.
9. Paying many millions of dollars in bribes to members of Congress to block actions by federal regulators, and block corrective legislation.
Typical Land Flip
A typical example of the fraud associated with land flips was a tract of property northeast of Denver where the new Denver airport was supposed to be located. The original parcel of land, called the Little Buckeroo Ranch, was purchased for $1 million and then flipped over several times in dummy land sales, fraudulently showing its value as $5 million. The Denver group involved in this scam obtained a $5 million non-recourse loan on the property and then defaulted when it was discovered the airport would be built elsewhere. They made a $4 million profit on the deal. People involved in that one example were heavily involved in the HUD and savings and loan fraud in the Denver area and had close ties to the Central Intelligence Agency.
Financing the Looting
To generate the hundreds of millions of dollars to fund these scams, the parties operating savings and loans needed a steady supply of money, far more than could be expected from local depositors. The answer was in brokered deposits. Money brokers pooled $100,000 deposits from different sources and deposited the funds into whatever savings and loan offered the highest interest and paid the highest brokerage fee.
The deposited funds would either be used for high-risk loans or, as was often the case, to fund sham transactions in which there was no intention to repay the loans. The loss of several hundred billion dollars that will be paid by the American taxpayer required more than simply poor judgment. There was no risk to the con artists, as the American taxpayers were insuring the money.
Brokers would often offer deposits to a savings and loan on condition that the institution make one or more loans on a given piece of real estate. The loan amount would often be made in excess of the value of the property used for security, or made without any security. The institution making the loan may or may not realize that the loan would never be repaid. There were many variations of these scams. All could be foreseen, and all had occurred in isolated cases the decade before deregulation.
The Expected Commenced Immediately
The expected started happening immediately. Among the first was Vernon Savings and Loan in Texas, which failed in 1984, involving brokered deposits, land flips, inflated mortgages, and huge personal expenses billed to the financial institutions. Loans that would never have been made with the former safeguards were made to insiders and friends who scratched each other’s backs as they made themselves rich.
Ed Gray was sworn in on May 1, 1983, to head the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), and promptly discovered the seriousness of the massive fraud. He tried correcting the problem by returning the restriction on brokered deposits to the previous five percent, thereby halting the primary problem. But those who used the brokered deposits descended upon Congress, handing out money insured by the American taxpayer and succeeding in blocking this change. Treasury Secretary Regan, whose former employer profited by the brokered deposits, and many others, sought to discredit Gray as some sort of wacko.
Finally, the discrediting campaign succeeded, and Gray was replaced by Danny Wall, an aide to Senator Jake Garn, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Wall then obstructed corrective action to keep the massive fraud scheme in operation, while simultaneously keeping the money flowing to members of Congress that kept federal investigators at bay. Wall protected Lincoln Savings and Loan from the San Francisco regulatory board that had planned to shut down the corruption- plagued institution, removing Lincoln from the jurisdiction of the regulators who had uncovered the corruption.
In an unprecedented action, Wall transferred regulatory jurisdiction of Lincoln to Washington, and Lincoln continued its corrupt practices of looting assets of U.S. taxpayers and individual investors. One act was to offer bonds of bankrupted American Continental Corporation, Lincoln’s parent corporation, to its depositors, falsely claiming they were governmentprotected. Thousands of elderly people with no other source of income lost their life’s savings through this scheme, made possible by Washington and California politicians. These tactics also increased the immediate cost to the American taxpayer to approximately $2 billion plus the triple or so amount that will be paid in interest before the debt is paid off, if it ever is.
Virtually everyone who played the game, who looked the other way, or who blocked corrective action, profited. Members of Congress, including the Keating-Five, received bribes for blocking corrective action by federal inspectors. The media received advertising dollars from large numbers of real estate developments built under a cloud of fraud. The crooks in the savings and loans and others acting with them profited. Everyone knew the American taxpayer would foot the bills. Another group of losers, given very little attention, were the stockholders. Many of them invested their life’s savings in the savings and loans, and these savings were usually lost.
Simultaneously, Lincoln’s President, Charles Keating,99paid $839,000 of taxpayer’s money to various election committees to reelect Cranston,100 and hundreds of thousands more to the senators known as the “Keating Five:” Senators Alan Cranston, senior member on the House Banking Committee; Dennis DeConcini; John McCain; John Glenn; and Donald Riegle. I had notified each of them of the criminal activities I had uncovered, and demanded they receive testimony and evidence that my CIA and DEA whistleblowers and I were ready to present. They refused to respond.
Members of Congress sought to continue the cover-up to the end. In June 1989 Congress quietly rejected a request for $36.8 million to hire investigators to accelerate the investigation and prosecution of corrupt savings and loan officials.
Significant amounts of the looted funds were given to members of Congress as political contributions or under the table, like paying off the cops to operate a criminal enterprise.
In 1986 the Keating-Five senators applied pressure upon Washington regulators to prevent government investigators from taking actions against Keating’s Lincoln Savings and Loan (after the group received huge financial donations from Keating). This Congressional obstruction of the regulatory function of the U.S. government increased the costs to taxpayers far in excess of two hundred billion dollars for the entire industry. The taxpayers also must pay for the bribes paid to politicians on the California and federal levels and to the former government officials who became high salaried employees of Lincoln.
California’s Senator Alan Cranston obstructed the actions of the regulators who sought to prevent others from losing money, including elderly and retired people who invested in the uninsured bonds issued by Keating’s enterprises. This obstructive action interrupted the regulatory process, delaying the government takeover of Lincoln Savings and Loan, as it continued selling worthless, uninsured securities to the public.
Even Alan Greenspan, then a private consultant and later chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, sent a letter seeking to block corrective actions, falsely claiming Lincoln was in good financial shape and had good lending practices. This was preposterous. Lincoln’s primary assets were grossly inflated desert land. Lincoln had a practice of lending money to closely related investors or their own real estate enterprises, often without any credit check and without collateral.
Eventually the losses were too great to ignore. A new agency was formed to clean up the mess. But the same parties who blocked prior corrective action wanted Wall installed as its head, fighting to retain the head of the regulatory agency that helped continue the escalating corruption. Senator Cranston and Representative Donald Riegle fought hard to have Danny Wall confirmed as head of the new agency without a confirmation hearing, avoiding senate questioning of the debacle that unfolded while he held responsibility to prevent such fraud.
Congress’ response to the nation’s greatest financial debacle consisted of carefully avoiding charging any of their members, including the Keating- Five, with any crimes. They wrung their hands trying to decide whether any of the senators who received huge amounts of money from the crooks, and who blocked corrective attempts by federal regulators, violated ethics. Using this standard on many people sent to federal prison for far less federal offenses would greatly reduce the prison population.
You Rat on Me and I’ll Rat on You
Cranston had earlier warned the entire United States Senate that, if the Ethics Committee moved to censure him for his role in the savings and loan scandal, he would blow the whistle on the role played by other senators in the savings and loan matter. As the “investigating” committee considered whether to censor Cranston for ethics violations, Senator Jeff Bingaman disqualified himself, requiring appointment of another senator, which in turn required weeks for the replacement to review the evidence. Bingaman had disqualified himself after “suddenly” discovering, after three years, that a conflict of interest existed: his wife worked for a law firm that once represented two of Cranston’s staff members whose legal bill had not been paid.
That move took the heat off the ethics committee until media attention focused elsewhere.
Congress repeatedly refused to provide money to shut down the hemorrhaging savings and loans, which then permitted the looting to go on, as well as continuing the political contributions from the insolvent institutions. Congressman Gonzalez stated101 that the White House and federal officials could simply have placed the looted and failed “institutions under government conservatorship.” But Congressman Gonzalez complained to federal regulators in late 1992 that “Regulators can put failing institutions under government conservatorship now, with or without any new funding. This should save the taxpayers the costs of further depletion of the institutions’ assets.” The refusal to shut down the fraud-racked savings and loans escalated the losses.
Usual Cover-Ups
Investigators, trying to blow the whistle on rampant corruption, testified to the House Banking Committee in October 1989 that Washington officials repeatedly overruled or restricted their investigation of corruption-riddled Lincoln Savings and Loan (as they had done after I started exposing hardcore government corruption in the aviation field starting in the mid-1960s).
Admitting to Paying for Influence
Keating admitted giving over five million dollars in political contributions to influence members of the U.S. House and the Senate and state politicians in California and Arizona. Cranston and the four other senators pressured regulators to back off from shutting down Lincoln Savings and Loan, inflicting even greater losses upon the American taxpayer.
Keating wasn’t hesitant about stating the effects he expected when he paid bribes to members of Congress, stating several times to the press: One question, among many raised in recent weeks, had to do with whether my financial support in any way influenced several political figures to take up my cause. I want to say in the most forceful way I can; I certainly hope so.
Despite the huge losses incurred by these practices, Keating paid himself and his family over $34 million in the three years before its demise, even though losses during this time were destroying the corporation. Representative Henry Gonzalez of Texas initially protected the system by using his post as chairman of the House Banking Committee to obstruct an investigation into questionable banking practices in his home district.
Gonzalez pushed an amendment to protect First National Bank of San Antonio and other financial subsidiaries from the regulatory actions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. But as the savings and loan scandal shot out from under the media blackout Gonzalez, head of the House committee103with oversight responsibilities for the savings and loan industry under the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS),104 focused attention on the savings and loan problems.
“Honesty Doesn’t Pay.”
The Dallas Morning News reported a conversation by an anonymous Texas state legislator, who said he had to take bribes from the HUD and savings and loan crowd because he needed the money to maintain his life style on a legislator’s salary. He reportedly stated: “It’s hard to be pious because in all honesty I could use the money. Honesty doesn’t pay.”
My CIA contacts described a well- publicized area of the savings and loan corruption in Dallas apartment units along Interstate 30, running east to Lake Ray Hubbard. Hundreds of apartments were built for which there was no demand, no rentals, and no sales. Money was made through land flips and shoddy construction. Some apartment buildings were shown as completed even though the plumbing and other necessities had not been installed. Covert CIA proprietary operations were involved in this scheme that defrauded the American public.
California Involvement in Corruption
Corrupt California politics made the Lincoln debacle possible. The California General Services Department (and the California Department of Savings and Loans) obstructed the investigation of Lincoln’s corrupt practices, rendering administrative decisions resulting in the loss of almost a quarter billion dollars in savings of the elderly.
In California, Chapter 11 judicial corruption was especially acute. California was the state producing numerous lawyers and prosecutors that played a key role in some of the scandals described within these pages. The Justice Department‘s scheme to silence me used California lawyers, law firms, and state judges, augmented by California-based U.S. district court judges and justices. In this way they joined the conspiracy of criminality I sought to expose.
Many on the Reagan-Bush team were from California, including Earl Brian (of Inslaw fame), Edwin Meese (the U.S. Attorney involved in many of the scandals described within these pages), J. Lowell Jensen (part of the Inslaw scandal yet to be described), and Senator Alan Cranston.
Numerous California officials and friends of California Governor George Deukmejian, mostly lawyers, were heavily involved in these scandals. A Keating enterprise, TCS, made political contributions totaling $48,000 to Deukmejian’s campaigns. Keating paid over $189,000 to Deukmejian, in addition to the nearly one million given to California Senator Cranston‘s interests. Over 23,000 California investors were seriously harmed, as they purchased $250 million in uninsured bonds (most investors thought they were government insured) after California regulators approved their sales, knowing the corporation was insolvent. Many of these elderly people lost their life savings and their sole means of financial support.
In November 1984 Lawrence Taggart, while a California Savings and Loan Commissioner, rendered official decisions allowing Lincoln to continue its fraudulent schemes, causing thousands of investors to lose their life savings. On December 7, 1984, three days before a crucial deadline that nobody was supposed to know about except highest-level federal regulators, Taggart gave Lincoln approval to move almost a billion dollars to its subsidiaries.
Taggart then left to became a director of TCS. But records showed Taggart was already hired by TCS at that time. On January 1, 1985, Taggart left his California position, responsible for regulating savings and loans, to work full-time as TCS’s highest salaried executive. Additionally, he was to receive half of the after-tax profits earned by the consulting department he headed, and other perks. Three weeks later, Lincoln bought $2.89 million worth of TCS common stock.
Barbara Thomas, a former SEC commissioner, reportedly called the SEC to act as a character witness for Keating during its investigation. Gonzalez said his staff’s investigation revealed that Ms. Thomas had received a $250,000 loan from Mr. Keating with unusual payback provisions, suggesting a quid pro quo arrangement.
Jack Atchison of the auditing firm of Arthur Young & Company was primarily responsible for auditing Lincoln Savings and Loan and submitting the reports to the government. Atchison sent several letters to three senators saying that Lincoln was a sound institution and that federal regulators were harassing Lincoln executives. Atchison then left his employment with the accounting firm and went to work for Lincoln at a salary exceeding $900,000 a year. The salary far exceeded what the position justified. It was surely another of hundreds of quid pro quo agreements in exchange for the sham report showing Lincoln as being solvent and in good financial condition, when actually it was not.
A California Department of Corporations lawyer-regulator issued a strong warning about uninsured bonds sold in Lincoln’s offices. But California officials kept the warning quiet, making possible the sale of worthless bonds to thousands of California investors.
California Assemblyman Patrick Nolan received large financial contributions from Keating after Nolan sponsored legislation removing investment restrictions on state-chartered institutions. More dirty California politics followed. In 1983 I notified Governor Deukmejian, California Attorney General Van De Camp, and numerous state legislators, of the involvement of state judges in seeking to silence my exposure of criminal activities. Instead of investigating the charges and taking corrective action, they protected the judges after I filed civil rights actions in federal court.
California officials denied state examiners and legislative investigators access to records, stating there was high danger of asbestos contamination where the records were stored. Possibly twenty years residence in the building might constitute a danger, but certainly not ten minutes to pick up the files! The building owner denied there was any danger:107 “They [the records] could have been picked up any time in the last 200 days. They knew there was no problem [of asbestos].”
Assemblywoman Delaine Eastin of the California House Banking Committee stated that subpoenas would be necessary in the Lincoln case to obtain the records from the California Department of Corporations and the California Department of Savings and Loans. Officials under Governor Deukmejian refused to turn over the records, knowing that they contained evidence of California politicians’ involvement in the savings and loan scandal. California and Arizona committees conducted interim hearings dealing mostly in trivia, in that way protecting California officials implicated in the savings and loan scandal.
Both U.S. senators from California, Alan Cranston and Pete Wilson, received money from Keating to block the actions by federal regulators. Wilson received over $75,000 from Keating and received large financial contributions within two months of his election to the U.S. Senate, holding the record for the amount of political contributions in 1990, according to the San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner.
Part of the money, often the life’s savings and means of economic survival, lost by investors, went to bribe U.S. senators and representatives who were protecting the crooks in the savings and loans. Widows, retired persons, many of them elderly, testified before a House Banking Committee on November 14, 1989, that they lost their entire life’s savings, blaming California Senator Alan Cranston and other members of Congress for their losses. Many, unaware they were uninsured, invested their life’s savings in the over $300 million in junk bonds after Cranston and other members of Congress blocked the actions of government inspectors and regulators. What should have been golden years for thousands of retirees, especially in California, turned into abject poverty, compliments of California regulators and members of Congress, who took bribes to prevent exposure and closure of the corrupt practices of Lincoln Savings and Loan, Keating, and others.
A Few Exceptions
There were a few members of Congress who spoke out on the rampant criminality in the deregulated savings and loan scandal. Representative Jim Leach told a panel of journalists (May 1989), “You have the opportunity to hold your Legislative Branch accountable, and perhaps bring it down.” Referring to the cover-up by the government regulatory agency that permitted the corruption to continue, Leach stated: “This Bank Board did the opposite of making timely warnings. It tried to put people to sleep while a fire was raging.”
Lawyer Joseph Cotchett of Burlingame, California, representing many of the elderly who were swindled in the Lincoln bonds, described the obstructionist tactics by California officials: “And now we have reached the 1,000th coincidence in this case.”
Can the Money be Recovered?
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation‘s Chairman L. William Seidman told of the hopelessness of recovering the huge losses. He warned that the amount of money recovered from anyone found guilty of self-dealing and other insider abuses would be small. “The money is long gone, spent,” Mr. Seidman said. “We cannot expect any substantial recovery from criminal abuse.”
But it could be traced if they wanted to, as I found through CIA and other sources where many of the trusts were located. Whatever the actual immediate figure is, $250 to $500 billion, these figures exceed many times the total amount looted from publicized savings and loans. My CIA and other contacts, who had key roles in the HUD and savings and loan scandals and some yet to be exposed, helped move the money to secret offshore and domestic banks, trusts, limited partnerships and other financial vehicles. They told me where some of the funds could be located. In later pages, some of these locations are identified.
Heavy CIA Involvement
Several well-documented books108 have been written of the savings and loan debacle. One thing that most of them missed, which I would not have known except for becoming a confidant to several CIA operatives, was the major role played by the CIA in the looting of America’s financial institutions. Among the CIA-related savings and loans listed in these books as being part of the looting but not identified as CIA proprietaries were Silverado Bank Savings & Loan (Denver); Aurora Bank (Denver); Indian Springs State Bank (Kansas City, Mo); Red Hill Savings and Loan; and Hill Financial in Red Hill, Pennsylvania. These authors also failed to discover that many of the other savings and loans were often cutouts for the CIA.
Silverado Bank Savings and Loan
Much has been written about Denver’s Silverado Bank Savings & Loan and its most prominent director, Neil Bush, the son of George Bush. But much has remained secret about Silverado. One of the best-kept secrets was that Silverado was a covert CIA operation; that it funded many covert CIA assets; and that many of the huge financial losses were the direct result of CIA activities. It is ironical that Silverado, a CIA proprietary, had as one of its directors the son of former director of the CIA, George Bush. Because of heavy CIA involvement in Silverado, and for other reasons to be covered, Justice Department prosecutors protected the Silverado gang against meaningful prosecution.
Neil Bush played a key role in Silverado’s misconduct, receiving only a token reaction from government agencies that kept a lid on Silverado’s criminal activities. Interest payments on money borrowed by the United States to pay off the original $2 billion looted from Silverado may cause the cost to the taxpayer to exceed $6 billion, assuming these debts are ever paid off. It required over two hundred sham loans of one million dollars each, not repaid, for these losses to occur. Neil Bush, like Oliver North in the Contra affair, displayed a look of innocence when questioned about his role in this huge financial fraud.
Neil Bush, while in a position of trust on the board of directors, borrowed over $2 million from Silverado, part of which went into a dry hole drilling for oil in an unlikely location. Most of the money went for his salary and personal expenses. He was not so stupid as not to realize the money would never be repaid if that hole did not produce oil. He drilled this hole where it was known there was no oil. But the drilling served as justification for paying himself a large salary and lots of perks, which the everbenevolent American taxpayers now must pay well into the next century.
Bush made no payments on the money he borrowed and no charges were filed by the Justice Department beholden to his father, President George Bush. It paid to have Justice Department personnel in your back pocket. Two borrowers from Silverado who were partners with Neil Bush, Ken Good and Bill Walters, got away with $130 million in loans from Silverado that were never repaid. Some of this money went to Michael Norton, who later protected them from prosecution when Norton became U.S. Attorney. The Mafia never had it so good.
When the lending institution failed, the taxpayers were stuck with the tab plus associated costs, including interest on the money borrowed to finance this portion of the national debt. The borrowers in the sham transaction, who had good political connections, often purchased the property at pennies on the dollar from the government after the savings and loans were taken over. Before the taxpayer finishes paying, the cost will probably triple. The infamous Silverado Bank Savings & Loan in Denver was one of the key lending institutions involved in these types of scams.
Media Cover-Up
Investigative reporters for the establishment media in the United States knew for years about the financial debacle, but kept the lid on the scandal. To remove the lid would have financially affected them, as major advertisers would have eliminated their advertisements. In Denver, for example, three newspapers received considerable income from the advertisements of the group heavily involved in the HUD and savings and loan fraud: Rocky Mountain News; Denver Post, and Westword.
Taxpayers’ Bill: Over $200 Billion—and They Never Complained!
The greatest financial debacle ever inflicted in the history of civilization is causing American taxpayers to be saddled with a debt that has been estimated as high as 200 billion dollars, including interest, an amount far exceeding America’s cost of fighting World War II. Probably this large indebtedness will never be paid off. And this is only the savings and loan fraud. Many other corrupt financial scams are pulled on the American public, including HUD, Chapter 11, and others yet to be described. This fraud, and the missing money which no one has sought, requires the American people to pay huge tax increases, and threatens the continuation of basic social programs. Very little attention has been given to the losses suffered by those people who owned stock in the savings and loans, including the retired people who had their entire savings in worthless stocks that no longer provided dividend income.
Where Were the FBI, Justice Department and
Other Federal Checks and Balances?
A good question would be: Where were the hundreds of FBI and Justice Department investigators during this massive fraud inflicted upon the American people? The criminal activities were too extensive for them not to know of their existence. With its many connections within the United States, one could also ask where the CIA was during all this? The fact is, they did know. Later pages will help to explain how these criminal enterprises are linked together, and how people in control of our checks and balances were implicated in them.
A California banking investigator, Richard Newsom, testified that he went to the FBI in July 1988, after he found evidence of serious criminal activities in the savings and loan industry. He testified that he had found that the parent company of Lincoln Savings and Loan funneled over $800,000 to Senator Alan Cranston, and that “the stuff was too hot.” The FBI and Department of Justice refused to take any action on the reported corruption. As is shown throughout these pages, the Justice Department‘s lawyers, including their FBI Division, are most noted among insiders as being heavily involved in hard-core obstruction of justice when federal officials are implicated.
Justice Department Protection of Kingpins
And Wrist Slapping of Their Underlings
James Metz, listed as a majority owner of Silverado Savings & Loan, pled guilty (October 16, 1992) to taking $100,000 of savings and loan funds for personal use, and received a six- month sentence in a half-way house. This sentence permitted him to work as president of Richmond Homes and be home during the day, requiring only that he sleep at the location at Colfax and Fillmore Streets in Denver. This token judgment ignored the two billion dollars looted with his help from Silverado. My CIA contacts stated Metz was one of many CIA assets in the Denver area.
David Mandarich was indicted for illegal contributions, of which Michael Norton, U.S. Attorney in Denver, was the major recipient. Since Norton was the primary recipient of the money, he had to stand aside and have Marvin Collins, U.S. Attorney from Texas, act as special prosecutor (directed by Norton) to prosecute the case. Mandarich took the fall for the many other big names but was protected by U.S. Attorney Collins, who deliberately presented a weak case to the jury. U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch then assisted in the cover-up by dismissing the charges.
Justice Department prosecutors waited until the statute of limitations had run out for charging Neil Bush and others of the Denver gang before filing nominal charges against Silverado’s James Metz and Michael Wise. Corruption and cover-up in the Denver area was orchestrated by U.S. Attorney Michael Norton and Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Graff in Denver. Investigation of key players would have implicated the CIA and risked exposing White House and other politicians involved in the savings and loan crimes (among others yet to be described).
Coming Down Hard on Scapegoats
Many of those charged and prosecuted by Justice Department lawyers in the savings and loan fraud were outside directors of savings and loans, in honorary positions with no knowledge of or control in the institution’s activities. By seeking to put these people in prison, Justice Department prosecutors were protecting the kingpins that continued to inflict great financial harm upon the American public. By indicting these people, the prosecutors misled the public into thinking that justice was being done.
The Fraud Didn’t Stop
The fraud by the Denver group inflicted billions of dollars in direct losses upon the American people. But it didn’t end there. The same Denver group and others, who brought about the collapse of the savings and loan industry by their corrupt activities, used their Washington influence to buy back properties and other assets from Resolution Trust Corporation at ten and twenty cents on the dollar. They made money bringing down the savings and loans and made money buying the assets back, with the help of the same Washington gang. MDC bought from the RTC $750 million in loans that they had obtained from Silverado for $150 million, making a $600 million profit, and defrauding Silverado out of $600 million. This was not mentioned in the investigation of that savings and loan.
Central Intelligence Agency Involvement
An article in Penthouse ( note 109) detailed the CIA involvement in fleecing financial institutions. Entitled: The Banks and the CIA, Cash and Carry, it carried the subtitle, “How Agency rogues fleeced financial institutions to help create one of the greatest scandals in U.S. History.” The article, describing the looting of banks and savings and loans by companies fronting for the Central Intelligence Agency, stated in part:
Agency rogues fleeced financial institutions to help create one of the greatest scandals in U.S. history...free-lance C.I.A. operatives—in the course of carrying out covert operations, fleeced America’s financial institutions....
The C.I.A., it was claimed, sanctioned...pulling money out of federally insured financial institutions to fund covert activities, particularly arms deals.
The article went on to say how Congress had shut off funding needed by the CIA for its covert operations, and how the CIA underground smuggled drugs into the country and looted banks and savings and loans. It further described how the CIA covert operations went underground when President Jimmy Carter ordered disbanding of its covert operations in the late 1970s. The article described how President Reagan’s 1981 inauguration reinvigorated the covert CIA operations. Denied funds by Congress, the covert CIA network carried out unlawful and clandestine activities throughout the United States and overseas. These activities violated the CIA charter and were criminal acts.
The Houston Post started a series of articles in 1991 revealing connections between the CIA, organized crime, and the savings and loan scandal. Investigative reporter Pete Brewton left the Houston Post after pressure was put upon him to withhold key facts. In October 1992 his book was published: The Mafia, the CIA, and George Bush–The Untold Story of America’s Greatest Financial Debacle.
My investigative activities brought me into contact with deep-cover intelligence agency personnel who revealed to me the part played by the CIA in looting the savings and loans and other financial institutions. In the following pages this relationship is explored.
CLICK BLOGPOST TITLE ABOVE to get linked to video interview of GUNTHER ROSSBACHER talking about "what he knew" from the inside on S&L FRAUD...similar to our contrived created banking crisis (COVER FOR OUTRAGEOUS THEFT based on EXTORTIONATE LEVERAGE HELD OVER OBAMA'S HEAD).
Admiral Gunther K. Russbacher was a 30 plus year veteran of the CIA and the Office of Naval Intelligence. He was also the co-founder of the print edition of Rumor Mill News.
This short video ONLY gives a sneak peek at what the CIA was doing during the S&L scandal. Gunther does NOT differentiate CIA-Faction 1 from CIA Faction 2. Faction 2 was right in the thick of it... helping Faction 1 loot the S&Ls. The only difference was where the looted money went. Faction 2 stashed it in European Trusts and used it for the next part of their looting plan... the plan to loot the Federal Reserve Banking System.
The next part for Faction Two came during the buildup to the dot.coms. But that's another long story. Let's just stick to the Savings and Loan Scandal.
Here is the Chapter on the Savings and Loans from Rodney Stich's book, DEFRAUDING AMERICA:
HUD Mortgage Insurance Scam
Another aspect of the HUD scams dealt with insurance premiums. People buying properties with mortgages provided by HUD paid mortgage insurance premiums up front for the life of the loan, amounting to several thousands dollars on each HUD transaction. Formerly, the buyer of HUD properties paid their insurance premiums on a monthly basis with their mortgage payments. But in 1983, the same Congress that passed legislation making the looting of savings and loans possible, passed legislation known as “HURRA” (Housing and Urban- Rural Recovery Act), pushed by Philip Winn, one of Denver’s high flyers, requiring the mortgage insurance premiums to be paid up front.
CIA asset Gunther Russbacher described to me how this worked, as he saw when he headed Red Hill Savings and Loan. He said that this was another of the many CIA scams that defrauded the American people of many millions of dollars. It is probable that the CIA involvement in this scam is what kept the Justice Department from prosecuting those guilty of the mortgage premium insurance fraud. Russbacher described how the scram worked:
They were using reinsurance companies with policy premiums that were never paid. Money was paid for the reinsurance but it was never paid [to the reinsurers]. The policy money, the premiums, were never paid in to where the policies were active. American International Groups was one of the big ones [involved in the scam]. Transatlantic Holdings was involved, as well as Transpacific Holdings. Maurice Greenberg, a close associate of Denver’s Leonard Millman, headed some of these companies. Dublin International Insurance was part of AI [American International]. We insured Putnam and Company.
Upon close of escrow, the insurance premiums were to be sent to brokerage companies that would then order the mortgage insurance. Among the companies involved in these activities was the American International Group, headquartered in New York. AIG was at the head of hundreds of companies and trusts throughout the world, and reportedly headed by Maurice Greenberg, a close friend of Denver-based Leonard Millman. AIG owned other companies involved in these activities, including Transatlantic Holdings and Putnam Reinsurance, which are in the reinsurance business.
The HUD mortgages for which up- front mortgage insurance premiums were paid were put into “pools” of mortgage loans with Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), which are then sold off on the secondary market to investors. The up-front insurance premiums were reportedly never sent to the companies that were to provide the insurance protection. When there were large and unexpected numbers of foreclosures during the 1980s, the mortgage insurance did not exist to pay for the large losses. CHAPTER EIGHT
Protected Insiders Looting Savings and Loans
Congress and the Reagan Administration deregulated the savings and loan industry through the Garn-St Germain Act of 1982, which was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on October 15, 1982. As he signed the far-reaching bill, Reagan announced that it was “the most important legislation for financial institutions in 50 years.” He added: “I think we’ve hit the jackpot.” If he meant the jackpot reference for the Mafia, the CIA, and a host of crooks, he was absolutely right. Even the famous bank robber, Willie Sutton, never envisioned such riches.
I had considerable real estate at that time, including motels, hotels, truck stops, golf courses, apartments, and land, and knew the financial frauds that would follow deregulation. It didn’t take any great expertise to predict the consequences, and surely members of Congress and the industry recognized that fact even sooner than I.
Developers, Mafia figures and crooks, started buying small savings and loans in out-of-the-way-places. In that manner they gained access to the Treasury of the United States, permitting them to engage in self- dealings, sham transactions, and massive fraud against the American taxpayer. Deregulation and the concurrent fraud were financially fabulous for many people, fueling massive growth in the real estate industry during the 1980s. The public picked up the price tab in the 1990s, and they would pay for decades, well into the next century. The losses, much of which was outright theft, exceeded the cost of World War II. Never in the history of the United States had such a massive financial debacle occurred, making the American taxpayer the victim of the biggest scam in the nation’s history.
The crooks that held the controlling interests in savings and loan associations paid themselves extravagant salaries, with virtually unlimited expense accounts that bled their companies dry. They made loans to themselves or corporations they owned or controlled and had a fabulous lifestyle that couldn’t possibly be supported by the income of the savings and loans they acquired.
Many sordid details of the savings and loan debacle have never been revealed by the mass media. Crooks, with the help of politicians, Justice Department officials and CIA renegades, stripped the American people of hundreds of billions of dollars. The American economy will eventually feel the effects of this theft, adversely affecting the American people.
Warning Flags Presaging Deregulation
It was no secret to members of Congress what would happen if the savings and loans were deregulated. The consequences of relaxing safeguards were seen elsewhere. For instance, the danger of brokered deposits was evident when serious problems arose in California during the 1960s when these deposits were allowed to reach a high percentage of a financial institution’s deposits, threatening its solvency. Sudden withdrawal of such large sums of money deposited as a block could easily make the institution insolvent. To correct this problem, regulators ordered a cap of five percent of an institution’s total brokered deposits. This restriction remained from 1963 until the limit on brokered deposits was removed in 1982 by the Depository Institutions Deregulation Committee, chaired by Treasury Secretary Donald Regan. This change was enormously profitable to financial institutions dealing in such deposits, including Regan’s prior employer before he joined the Reagan administration.
Brokered deposits consisted of blocks of $100,000 deposits from individual depositors, which was the limit for federal insurance guarantees.98 By dealing in brokered deposits the banks were able to increase their capital and engage in huge fraudulent schemes. The danger arose from the high interest rates and fees needed to acquire them, and these costs were greater than what could be earned by lending the money for safe real estate investments. Just prior to voting for deregulating the savings and loans, the nation’s worst bank failure occurred, which was caused by eliminating safeguards and permitting brokered deposits. The Oklahoma City financial institution, Penn Square Bank, failed in 1982 and brought giant Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company in Chicago to the brink of failure, as well as other lending institutions that had placed large sums of money into Penn Square Bank.
The American taxpayers had to bail out Continental Illinois to the tune of $4.5 billion (plus the interest that is still being paid on the payout). This amount was in addition to the payments made to the insured depositors at Penn Square. It was the largest federal bailout in the nation’s history, and showed the dangers of deregulation and brokered deposits and what could be expected with the subsequent signing of the deregulation act.
Penn Square offered the deposit brokers higher interest rates and substantial brokerage commissions for funds placed with the financial institution, causing brokers to place millions of dollars into the bank on any given day. But the rates and the fees that Penn Square had to pay for these deposits required making loans on high-risk investments. Further, the continual losses due to high costs of the funds and the inadequacy of returns on these funds required a continuing infusion of money to continue the Ponzi-like scheme.
Common sense and the history of failures made obvious what would happen when Congress voted for deregulation. But many of those who voted for deregulating the savings and loans were recipients of large financial contributions (i.e., bribes).
With brokered deposits there was no money available to make normal home loans; the spread was too much between the rate that homeowners could pay and the rate the savings and loans had to pay for the brokered funds.
The primary problem of deregulation came when the lending institution engaged in self-dealing, land-flips, sham loans, and many other devices used to carry out the massive fraud. All this was obvious to anyone close to the industry, as were members of Congress. But the immediate financial benefits to those voting for deregulation, the law firms and public relations firms, easily took precedence over the harm inflicted upon the United States and the American people, and this attitude prevails throughout these pages.
Every Common-sense Warning Sign Ignored
Some of the practices that could be expected to occur, and which did occur after deregulation, included:
1. Inflating the value of properties through land flips, whereby a parcel of land was “resold” numerous times, sometimes on the same day. Each time the new “buyer” paid a higher price. In that way, a borrower could indicate the land was worth far more than it actually was and obtain a larger loan than the property was worth. Oftentimes no payments would be made on the loan after receiving the loan proceeds, and the property allowed to go into foreclosure. The borrower then walked away with the difference between the purchase price of the property and the loan proceeds. In many cases this constituted millions of dollars
2. Making a loan to a controlled or a dummy corporation far beyond the value of the property, and then let the loan go into default, at which time it would be abandoned.
3. Making a loan that was not intended to be repaid to a controlled corporation. Then when the loan and interest payments are due, make a larger loan on the property to “pay off” the prior loan and accumulated interest, thus showing a sham profit. The loan would be shown as a performing loan on the books rather than a loan in default.
4. Swapping bad loans between cooperating financial institutions and showing the loans as performing loans on the books.
5. Spending lavishly on aircraft, vacation homes, trips, and other expensive life styles and charging it to business expenses. An honestly operated business would not incur such charges when the business was operating in the red.
6. Paying inordinately high salaries to themselves and providing themselves with bonuses when bad non- performing loans are renewed or traded for other bad loans with cooperating institutions.
7. Making sham loans on greatly overvalued real estate owned or controlled by the lending institution, with borrowers never intending to repay the loans.
8. Hiring former federal regulators at exorbitant salaries for their influence- peddling abilities and knowledge, to assist in circumventing regulatory protections.
9. Paying many millions of dollars in bribes to members of Congress to block actions by federal regulators, and block corrective legislation.
Typical Land Flip
A typical example of the fraud associated with land flips was a tract of property northeast of Denver where the new Denver airport was supposed to be located. The original parcel of land, called the Little Buckeroo Ranch, was purchased for $1 million and then flipped over several times in dummy land sales, fraudulently showing its value as $5 million. The Denver group involved in this scam obtained a $5 million non-recourse loan on the property and then defaulted when it was discovered the airport would be built elsewhere. They made a $4 million profit on the deal. People involved in that one example were heavily involved in the HUD and savings and loan fraud in the Denver area and had close ties to the Central Intelligence Agency.
Financing the Looting
To generate the hundreds of millions of dollars to fund these scams, the parties operating savings and loans needed a steady supply of money, far more than could be expected from local depositors. The answer was in brokered deposits. Money brokers pooled $100,000 deposits from different sources and deposited the funds into whatever savings and loan offered the highest interest and paid the highest brokerage fee.
The deposited funds would either be used for high-risk loans or, as was often the case, to fund sham transactions in which there was no intention to repay the loans. The loss of several hundred billion dollars that will be paid by the American taxpayer required more than simply poor judgment. There was no risk to the con artists, as the American taxpayers were insuring the money.
Brokers would often offer deposits to a savings and loan on condition that the institution make one or more loans on a given piece of real estate. The loan amount would often be made in excess of the value of the property used for security, or made without any security. The institution making the loan may or may not realize that the loan would never be repaid. There were many variations of these scams. All could be foreseen, and all had occurred in isolated cases the decade before deregulation.
The Expected Commenced Immediately
The expected started happening immediately. Among the first was Vernon Savings and Loan in Texas, which failed in 1984, involving brokered deposits, land flips, inflated mortgages, and huge personal expenses billed to the financial institutions. Loans that would never have been made with the former safeguards were made to insiders and friends who scratched each other’s backs as they made themselves rich.
Ed Gray was sworn in on May 1, 1983, to head the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), and promptly discovered the seriousness of the massive fraud. He tried correcting the problem by returning the restriction on brokered deposits to the previous five percent, thereby halting the primary problem. But those who used the brokered deposits descended upon Congress, handing out money insured by the American taxpayer and succeeding in blocking this change. Treasury Secretary Regan, whose former employer profited by the brokered deposits, and many others, sought to discredit Gray as some sort of wacko.
Finally, the discrediting campaign succeeded, and Gray was replaced by Danny Wall, an aide to Senator Jake Garn, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Wall then obstructed corrective action to keep the massive fraud scheme in operation, while simultaneously keeping the money flowing to members of Congress that kept federal investigators at bay. Wall protected Lincoln Savings and Loan from the San Francisco regulatory board that had planned to shut down the corruption- plagued institution, removing Lincoln from the jurisdiction of the regulators who had uncovered the corruption.
In an unprecedented action, Wall transferred regulatory jurisdiction of Lincoln to Washington, and Lincoln continued its corrupt practices of looting assets of U.S. taxpayers and individual investors. One act was to offer bonds of bankrupted American Continental Corporation, Lincoln’s parent corporation, to its depositors, falsely claiming they were governmentprotected. Thousands of elderly people with no other source of income lost their life’s savings through this scheme, made possible by Washington and California politicians. These tactics also increased the immediate cost to the American taxpayer to approximately $2 billion plus the triple or so amount that will be paid in interest before the debt is paid off, if it ever is.
Virtually everyone who played the game, who looked the other way, or who blocked corrective action, profited. Members of Congress, including the Keating-Five, received bribes for blocking corrective action by federal inspectors. The media received advertising dollars from large numbers of real estate developments built under a cloud of fraud. The crooks in the savings and loans and others acting with them profited. Everyone knew the American taxpayer would foot the bills. Another group of losers, given very little attention, were the stockholders. Many of them invested their life’s savings in the savings and loans, and these savings were usually lost.
Simultaneously, Lincoln’s President, Charles Keating,99paid $839,000 of taxpayer’s money to various election committees to reelect Cranston,100 and hundreds of thousands more to the senators known as the “Keating Five:” Senators Alan Cranston, senior member on the House Banking Committee; Dennis DeConcini; John McCain; John Glenn; and Donald Riegle. I had notified each of them of the criminal activities I had uncovered, and demanded they receive testimony and evidence that my CIA and DEA whistleblowers and I were ready to present. They refused to respond.
Members of Congress sought to continue the cover-up to the end. In June 1989 Congress quietly rejected a request for $36.8 million to hire investigators to accelerate the investigation and prosecution of corrupt savings and loan officials.
Significant amounts of the looted funds were given to members of Congress as political contributions or under the table, like paying off the cops to operate a criminal enterprise.
In 1986 the Keating-Five senators applied pressure upon Washington regulators to prevent government investigators from taking actions against Keating’s Lincoln Savings and Loan (after the group received huge financial donations from Keating). This Congressional obstruction of the regulatory function of the U.S. government increased the costs to taxpayers far in excess of two hundred billion dollars for the entire industry. The taxpayers also must pay for the bribes paid to politicians on the California and federal levels and to the former government officials who became high salaried employees of Lincoln.
California’s Senator Alan Cranston obstructed the actions of the regulators who sought to prevent others from losing money, including elderly and retired people who invested in the uninsured bonds issued by Keating’s enterprises. This obstructive action interrupted the regulatory process, delaying the government takeover of Lincoln Savings and Loan, as it continued selling worthless, uninsured securities to the public.
Even Alan Greenspan, then a private consultant and later chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, sent a letter seeking to block corrective actions, falsely claiming Lincoln was in good financial shape and had good lending practices. This was preposterous. Lincoln’s primary assets were grossly inflated desert land. Lincoln had a practice of lending money to closely related investors or their own real estate enterprises, often without any credit check and without collateral.
Eventually the losses were too great to ignore. A new agency was formed to clean up the mess. But the same parties who blocked prior corrective action wanted Wall installed as its head, fighting to retain the head of the regulatory agency that helped continue the escalating corruption. Senator Cranston and Representative Donald Riegle fought hard to have Danny Wall confirmed as head of the new agency without a confirmation hearing, avoiding senate questioning of the debacle that unfolded while he held responsibility to prevent such fraud.
Congress’ response to the nation’s greatest financial debacle consisted of carefully avoiding charging any of their members, including the Keating- Five, with any crimes. They wrung their hands trying to decide whether any of the senators who received huge amounts of money from the crooks, and who blocked corrective attempts by federal regulators, violated ethics. Using this standard on many people sent to federal prison for far less federal offenses would greatly reduce the prison population.
You Rat on Me and I’ll Rat on You
Cranston had earlier warned the entire United States Senate that, if the Ethics Committee moved to censure him for his role in the savings and loan scandal, he would blow the whistle on the role played by other senators in the savings and loan matter. As the “investigating” committee considered whether to censor Cranston for ethics violations, Senator Jeff Bingaman disqualified himself, requiring appointment of another senator, which in turn required weeks for the replacement to review the evidence. Bingaman had disqualified himself after “suddenly” discovering, after three years, that a conflict of interest existed: his wife worked for a law firm that once represented two of Cranston’s staff members whose legal bill had not been paid.
That move took the heat off the ethics committee until media attention focused elsewhere.
Congress repeatedly refused to provide money to shut down the hemorrhaging savings and loans, which then permitted the looting to go on, as well as continuing the political contributions from the insolvent institutions. Congressman Gonzalez stated101 that the White House and federal officials could simply have placed the looted and failed “institutions under government conservatorship.” But Congressman Gonzalez complained to federal regulators in late 1992 that “Regulators can put failing institutions under government conservatorship now, with or without any new funding. This should save the taxpayers the costs of further depletion of the institutions’ assets.” The refusal to shut down the fraud-racked savings and loans escalated the losses.
Usual Cover-Ups
Investigators, trying to blow the whistle on rampant corruption, testified to the House Banking Committee in October 1989 that Washington officials repeatedly overruled or restricted their investigation of corruption-riddled Lincoln Savings and Loan (as they had done after I started exposing hardcore government corruption in the aviation field starting in the mid-1960s).
Admitting to Paying for Influence
Keating admitted giving over five million dollars in political contributions to influence members of the U.S. House and the Senate and state politicians in California and Arizona. Cranston and the four other senators pressured regulators to back off from shutting down Lincoln Savings and Loan, inflicting even greater losses upon the American taxpayer.
Keating wasn’t hesitant about stating the effects he expected when he paid bribes to members of Congress, stating several times to the press: One question, among many raised in recent weeks, had to do with whether my financial support in any way influenced several political figures to take up my cause. I want to say in the most forceful way I can; I certainly hope so.
Despite the huge losses incurred by these practices, Keating paid himself and his family over $34 million in the three years before its demise, even though losses during this time were destroying the corporation. Representative Henry Gonzalez of Texas initially protected the system by using his post as chairman of the House Banking Committee to obstruct an investigation into questionable banking practices in his home district.
Gonzalez pushed an amendment to protect First National Bank of San Antonio and other financial subsidiaries from the regulatory actions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. But as the savings and loan scandal shot out from under the media blackout Gonzalez, head of the House committee103with oversight responsibilities for the savings and loan industry under the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS),104 focused attention on the savings and loan problems.
“Honesty Doesn’t Pay.”
The Dallas Morning News reported a conversation by an anonymous Texas state legislator, who said he had to take bribes from the HUD and savings and loan crowd because he needed the money to maintain his life style on a legislator’s salary. He reportedly stated: “It’s hard to be pious because in all honesty I could use the money. Honesty doesn’t pay.”
My CIA contacts described a well- publicized area of the savings and loan corruption in Dallas apartment units along Interstate 30, running east to Lake Ray Hubbard. Hundreds of apartments were built for which there was no demand, no rentals, and no sales. Money was made through land flips and shoddy construction. Some apartment buildings were shown as completed even though the plumbing and other necessities had not been installed. Covert CIA proprietary operations were involved in this scheme that defrauded the American public.
California Involvement in Corruption
Corrupt California politics made the Lincoln debacle possible. The California General Services Department (and the California Department of Savings and Loans) obstructed the investigation of Lincoln’s corrupt practices, rendering administrative decisions resulting in the loss of almost a quarter billion dollars in savings of the elderly.
In California, Chapter 11 judicial corruption was especially acute. California was the state producing numerous lawyers and prosecutors that played a key role in some of the scandals described within these pages. The Justice Department‘s scheme to silence me used California lawyers, law firms, and state judges, augmented by California-based U.S. district court judges and justices. In this way they joined the conspiracy of criminality I sought to expose.
Many on the Reagan-Bush team were from California, including Earl Brian (of Inslaw fame), Edwin Meese (the U.S. Attorney involved in many of the scandals described within these pages), J. Lowell Jensen (part of the Inslaw scandal yet to be described), and Senator Alan Cranston.
Numerous California officials and friends of California Governor George Deukmejian, mostly lawyers, were heavily involved in these scandals. A Keating enterprise, TCS, made political contributions totaling $48,000 to Deukmejian’s campaigns. Keating paid over $189,000 to Deukmejian, in addition to the nearly one million given to California Senator Cranston‘s interests. Over 23,000 California investors were seriously harmed, as they purchased $250 million in uninsured bonds (most investors thought they were government insured) after California regulators approved their sales, knowing the corporation was insolvent. Many of these elderly people lost their life savings and their sole means of financial support.
In November 1984 Lawrence Taggart, while a California Savings and Loan Commissioner, rendered official decisions allowing Lincoln to continue its fraudulent schemes, causing thousands of investors to lose their life savings. On December 7, 1984, three days before a crucial deadline that nobody was supposed to know about except highest-level federal regulators, Taggart gave Lincoln approval to move almost a billion dollars to its subsidiaries.
Taggart then left to became a director of TCS. But records showed Taggart was already hired by TCS at that time. On January 1, 1985, Taggart left his California position, responsible for regulating savings and loans, to work full-time as TCS’s highest salaried executive. Additionally, he was to receive half of the after-tax profits earned by the consulting department he headed, and other perks. Three weeks later, Lincoln bought $2.89 million worth of TCS common stock.
Barbara Thomas, a former SEC commissioner, reportedly called the SEC to act as a character witness for Keating during its investigation. Gonzalez said his staff’s investigation revealed that Ms. Thomas had received a $250,000 loan from Mr. Keating with unusual payback provisions, suggesting a quid pro quo arrangement.
Jack Atchison of the auditing firm of Arthur Young & Company was primarily responsible for auditing Lincoln Savings and Loan and submitting the reports to the government. Atchison sent several letters to three senators saying that Lincoln was a sound institution and that federal regulators were harassing Lincoln executives. Atchison then left his employment with the accounting firm and went to work for Lincoln at a salary exceeding $900,000 a year. The salary far exceeded what the position justified. It was surely another of hundreds of quid pro quo agreements in exchange for the sham report showing Lincoln as being solvent and in good financial condition, when actually it was not.
A California Department of Corporations lawyer-regulator issued a strong warning about uninsured bonds sold in Lincoln’s offices. But California officials kept the warning quiet, making possible the sale of worthless bonds to thousands of California investors.
California Assemblyman Patrick Nolan received large financial contributions from Keating after Nolan sponsored legislation removing investment restrictions on state-chartered institutions. More dirty California politics followed. In 1983 I notified Governor Deukmejian, California Attorney General Van De Camp, and numerous state legislators, of the involvement of state judges in seeking to silence my exposure of criminal activities. Instead of investigating the charges and taking corrective action, they protected the judges after I filed civil rights actions in federal court.
California officials denied state examiners and legislative investigators access to records, stating there was high danger of asbestos contamination where the records were stored. Possibly twenty years residence in the building might constitute a danger, but certainly not ten minutes to pick up the files! The building owner denied there was any danger:107 “They [the records] could have been picked up any time in the last 200 days. They knew there was no problem [of asbestos].”
Assemblywoman Delaine Eastin of the California House Banking Committee stated that subpoenas would be necessary in the Lincoln case to obtain the records from the California Department of Corporations and the California Department of Savings and Loans. Officials under Governor Deukmejian refused to turn over the records, knowing that they contained evidence of California politicians’ involvement in the savings and loan scandal. California and Arizona committees conducted interim hearings dealing mostly in trivia, in that way protecting California officials implicated in the savings and loan scandal.
Both U.S. senators from California, Alan Cranston and Pete Wilson, received money from Keating to block the actions by federal regulators. Wilson received over $75,000 from Keating and received large financial contributions within two months of his election to the U.S. Senate, holding the record for the amount of political contributions in 1990, according to the San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner.
Part of the money, often the life’s savings and means of economic survival, lost by investors, went to bribe U.S. senators and representatives who were protecting the crooks in the savings and loans. Widows, retired persons, many of them elderly, testified before a House Banking Committee on November 14, 1989, that they lost their entire life’s savings, blaming California Senator Alan Cranston and other members of Congress for their losses. Many, unaware they were uninsured, invested their life’s savings in the over $300 million in junk bonds after Cranston and other members of Congress blocked the actions of government inspectors and regulators. What should have been golden years for thousands of retirees, especially in California, turned into abject poverty, compliments of California regulators and members of Congress, who took bribes to prevent exposure and closure of the corrupt practices of Lincoln Savings and Loan, Keating, and others.
A Few Exceptions
There were a few members of Congress who spoke out on the rampant criminality in the deregulated savings and loan scandal. Representative Jim Leach told a panel of journalists (May 1989), “You have the opportunity to hold your Legislative Branch accountable, and perhaps bring it down.” Referring to the cover-up by the government regulatory agency that permitted the corruption to continue, Leach stated: “This Bank Board did the opposite of making timely warnings. It tried to put people to sleep while a fire was raging.”
Lawyer Joseph Cotchett of Burlingame, California, representing many of the elderly who were swindled in the Lincoln bonds, described the obstructionist tactics by California officials: “And now we have reached the 1,000th coincidence in this case.”
Can the Money be Recovered?
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation‘s Chairman L. William Seidman told of the hopelessness of recovering the huge losses. He warned that the amount of money recovered from anyone found guilty of self-dealing and other insider abuses would be small. “The money is long gone, spent,” Mr. Seidman said. “We cannot expect any substantial recovery from criminal abuse.”
But it could be traced if they wanted to, as I found through CIA and other sources where many of the trusts were located. Whatever the actual immediate figure is, $250 to $500 billion, these figures exceed many times the total amount looted from publicized savings and loans. My CIA and other contacts, who had key roles in the HUD and savings and loan scandals and some yet to be exposed, helped move the money to secret offshore and domestic banks, trusts, limited partnerships and other financial vehicles. They told me where some of the funds could be located. In later pages, some of these locations are identified.
Heavy CIA Involvement
Several well-documented books108 have been written of the savings and loan debacle. One thing that most of them missed, which I would not have known except for becoming a confidant to several CIA operatives, was the major role played by the CIA in the looting of America’s financial institutions. Among the CIA-related savings and loans listed in these books as being part of the looting but not identified as CIA proprietaries were Silverado Bank Savings & Loan (Denver); Aurora Bank (Denver); Indian Springs State Bank (Kansas City, Mo); Red Hill Savings and Loan; and Hill Financial in Red Hill, Pennsylvania. These authors also failed to discover that many of the other savings and loans were often cutouts for the CIA.
Silverado Bank Savings and Loan
Much has been written about Denver’s Silverado Bank Savings & Loan and its most prominent director, Neil Bush, the son of George Bush. But much has remained secret about Silverado. One of the best-kept secrets was that Silverado was a covert CIA operation; that it funded many covert CIA assets; and that many of the huge financial losses were the direct result of CIA activities. It is ironical that Silverado, a CIA proprietary, had as one of its directors the son of former director of the CIA, George Bush. Because of heavy CIA involvement in Silverado, and for other reasons to be covered, Justice Department prosecutors protected the Silverado gang against meaningful prosecution.
Neil Bush played a key role in Silverado’s misconduct, receiving only a token reaction from government agencies that kept a lid on Silverado’s criminal activities. Interest payments on money borrowed by the United States to pay off the original $2 billion looted from Silverado may cause the cost to the taxpayer to exceed $6 billion, assuming these debts are ever paid off. It required over two hundred sham loans of one million dollars each, not repaid, for these losses to occur. Neil Bush, like Oliver North in the Contra affair, displayed a look of innocence when questioned about his role in this huge financial fraud.
Neil Bush, while in a position of trust on the board of directors, borrowed over $2 million from Silverado, part of which went into a dry hole drilling for oil in an unlikely location. Most of the money went for his salary and personal expenses. He was not so stupid as not to realize the money would never be repaid if that hole did not produce oil. He drilled this hole where it was known there was no oil. But the drilling served as justification for paying himself a large salary and lots of perks, which the everbenevolent American taxpayers now must pay well into the next century.
Bush made no payments on the money he borrowed and no charges were filed by the Justice Department beholden to his father, President George Bush. It paid to have Justice Department personnel in your back pocket. Two borrowers from Silverado who were partners with Neil Bush, Ken Good and Bill Walters, got away with $130 million in loans from Silverado that were never repaid. Some of this money went to Michael Norton, who later protected them from prosecution when Norton became U.S. Attorney. The Mafia never had it so good.
When the lending institution failed, the taxpayers were stuck with the tab plus associated costs, including interest on the money borrowed to finance this portion of the national debt. The borrowers in the sham transaction, who had good political connections, often purchased the property at pennies on the dollar from the government after the savings and loans were taken over. Before the taxpayer finishes paying, the cost will probably triple. The infamous Silverado Bank Savings & Loan in Denver was one of the key lending institutions involved in these types of scams.
Media Cover-Up
Investigative reporters for the establishment media in the United States knew for years about the financial debacle, but kept the lid on the scandal. To remove the lid would have financially affected them, as major advertisers would have eliminated their advertisements. In Denver, for example, three newspapers received considerable income from the advertisements of the group heavily involved in the HUD and savings and loan fraud: Rocky Mountain News; Denver Post, and Westword.
Taxpayers’ Bill: Over $200 Billion—and They Never Complained!
The greatest financial debacle ever inflicted in the history of civilization is causing American taxpayers to be saddled with a debt that has been estimated as high as 200 billion dollars, including interest, an amount far exceeding America’s cost of fighting World War II. Probably this large indebtedness will never be paid off. And this is only the savings and loan fraud. Many other corrupt financial scams are pulled on the American public, including HUD, Chapter 11, and others yet to be described. This fraud, and the missing money which no one has sought, requires the American people to pay huge tax increases, and threatens the continuation of basic social programs. Very little attention has been given to the losses suffered by those people who owned stock in the savings and loans, including the retired people who had their entire savings in worthless stocks that no longer provided dividend income.
Where Were the FBI, Justice Department and
Other Federal Checks and Balances?
A good question would be: Where were the hundreds of FBI and Justice Department investigators during this massive fraud inflicted upon the American people? The criminal activities were too extensive for them not to know of their existence. With its many connections within the United States, one could also ask where the CIA was during all this? The fact is, they did know. Later pages will help to explain how these criminal enterprises are linked together, and how people in control of our checks and balances were implicated in them.
A California banking investigator, Richard Newsom, testified that he went to the FBI in July 1988, after he found evidence of serious criminal activities in the savings and loan industry. He testified that he had found that the parent company of Lincoln Savings and Loan funneled over $800,000 to Senator Alan Cranston, and that “the stuff was too hot.” The FBI and Department of Justice refused to take any action on the reported corruption. As is shown throughout these pages, the Justice Department‘s lawyers, including their FBI Division, are most noted among insiders as being heavily involved in hard-core obstruction of justice when federal officials are implicated.
Justice Department Protection of Kingpins
And Wrist Slapping of Their Underlings
James Metz, listed as a majority owner of Silverado Savings & Loan, pled guilty (October 16, 1992) to taking $100,000 of savings and loan funds for personal use, and received a six- month sentence in a half-way house. This sentence permitted him to work as president of Richmond Homes and be home during the day, requiring only that he sleep at the location at Colfax and Fillmore Streets in Denver. This token judgment ignored the two billion dollars looted with his help from Silverado. My CIA contacts stated Metz was one of many CIA assets in the Denver area.
David Mandarich was indicted for illegal contributions, of which Michael Norton, U.S. Attorney in Denver, was the major recipient. Since Norton was the primary recipient of the money, he had to stand aside and have Marvin Collins, U.S. Attorney from Texas, act as special prosecutor (directed by Norton) to prosecute the case. Mandarich took the fall for the many other big names but was protected by U.S. Attorney Collins, who deliberately presented a weak case to the jury. U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch then assisted in the cover-up by dismissing the charges.
Justice Department prosecutors waited until the statute of limitations had run out for charging Neil Bush and others of the Denver gang before filing nominal charges against Silverado’s James Metz and Michael Wise. Corruption and cover-up in the Denver area was orchestrated by U.S. Attorney Michael Norton and Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Graff in Denver. Investigation of key players would have implicated the CIA and risked exposing White House and other politicians involved in the savings and loan crimes (among others yet to be described).
Coming Down Hard on Scapegoats
Many of those charged and prosecuted by Justice Department lawyers in the savings and loan fraud were outside directors of savings and loans, in honorary positions with no knowledge of or control in the institution’s activities. By seeking to put these people in prison, Justice Department prosecutors were protecting the kingpins that continued to inflict great financial harm upon the American public. By indicting these people, the prosecutors misled the public into thinking that justice was being done.
The Fraud Didn’t Stop
The fraud by the Denver group inflicted billions of dollars in direct losses upon the American people. But it didn’t end there. The same Denver group and others, who brought about the collapse of the savings and loan industry by their corrupt activities, used their Washington influence to buy back properties and other assets from Resolution Trust Corporation at ten and twenty cents on the dollar. They made money bringing down the savings and loans and made money buying the assets back, with the help of the same Washington gang. MDC bought from the RTC $750 million in loans that they had obtained from Silverado for $150 million, making a $600 million profit, and defrauding Silverado out of $600 million. This was not mentioned in the investigation of that savings and loan.
Central Intelligence Agency Involvement
An article in Penthouse ( note 109) detailed the CIA involvement in fleecing financial institutions. Entitled: The Banks and the CIA, Cash and Carry, it carried the subtitle, “How Agency rogues fleeced financial institutions to help create one of the greatest scandals in U.S. History.” The article, describing the looting of banks and savings and loans by companies fronting for the Central Intelligence Agency, stated in part:
Agency rogues fleeced financial institutions to help create one of the greatest scandals in U.S. history...free-lance C.I.A. operatives—in the course of carrying out covert operations, fleeced America’s financial institutions....
The C.I.A., it was claimed, sanctioned...pulling money out of federally insured financial institutions to fund covert activities, particularly arms deals.
The article went on to say how Congress had shut off funding needed by the CIA for its covert operations, and how the CIA underground smuggled drugs into the country and looted banks and savings and loans. It further described how the CIA covert operations went underground when President Jimmy Carter ordered disbanding of its covert operations in the late 1970s. The article described how President Reagan’s 1981 inauguration reinvigorated the covert CIA operations. Denied funds by Congress, the covert CIA network carried out unlawful and clandestine activities throughout the United States and overseas. These activities violated the CIA charter and were criminal acts.
The Houston Post started a series of articles in 1991 revealing connections between the CIA, organized crime, and the savings and loan scandal. Investigative reporter Pete Brewton left the Houston Post after pressure was put upon him to withhold key facts. In October 1992 his book was published: The Mafia, the CIA, and George Bush–The Untold Story of America’s Greatest Financial Debacle.
My investigative activities brought me into contact with deep-cover intelligence agency personnel who revealed to me the part played by the CIA in looting the savings and loans and other financial institutions. In the following pages this relationship is explored.
BUSH CRIME FAMILY: crackhead pilot rams plane into terminal...9 dead...DRUG MONEY MILK RUNS use CHARTER AIRPLANE REGISTRY...drug tip for FBI--DEA
http://www.madcowprod.com/02242009.html
NOTE: CLICK BLOGPOST TITLE TO GET LINKED TO MADCOWMORNINGNEWS: see photos...good website.
Charter Company in Crash Ran Second Jet Off Runway
February 24 2009
by Daniel Hopsicker
Less than a year before the Teterboro crash of a Challenger corporate jet that ran off a runway and hurtled into traffic on a busy 6-lane highway on Feb 2 2005, the company responsible for that crash, Platinum Jet Management of Fort Lauderdale, ran a private jet off a runway at Peachtree-DeKalb Airport in Atlanta.
The Teterboro crash was so spectacular that it led all three evening newscasts. Later, an investigation held in the wake of the crash turned up damning evidence of a pattern of illegal activity on the part of the charter company so egregious the FAA came under rare criticism from another Federal agency, the NTSB.
The charter company's executives, including CEO and chief pilot Michael Brassington, were arrested on felony criminal charges two weeks ago.
That the company's pilots regularly experienced difficulties keeping their airplanes on the runway has not been reported until now.
We pieced together the story after finding a brief Associated Press dispatch about the incident:
"A business jet rolled off the runway at Peachtree-DeKalb Airport in north Atlanta Thursday afternoon," the Associated Press reported on Feb. 26, 2004.
"The Gulfstream 3...was landing on Runway 20 Left when it rolled off the end of the runway. It was registered to a Dallas-based company, 448 Alliance LLC."
We already knew that 448 Alliance, a Dallas outfit whose name will shortly prove important to this investigation, turned over both Gulfstream jets it owned to Platinum Jet.
But there was nothing on the plane marking it as belonging to any company or airline. Platinum Jet's name didn't surface in the Peachtree incident.
Nor did the twin-engine Challenger that crashed during takeoff at Teterboro carry any corporate or airline logo. No name was emblazoned on its tail.
The Man Behind "Loophole Air"
But former inspector general Mary Schiavo of the U.S. Department of Transportation says the airline it was flying for does have a name: She calls it "Loophole Airlines."
Schiavo, an outspoken critic of the nation's aviation regulators, said nobody knows how many other charter companies are doing the same thing that got Platinum into trouble. "The charter outfits don't have to file any reports," she said. "You only see it when there's a crash."
The crash sparked a federal criminal investigation that led to the recent 23-count indictment against Brassington, and four other executives of Platinum Jet Management.
Schiavo told the NJ Star-Ledger that the company that flew the jet was an unqualified charter operator, flying U.S. skies only by circumventing federal regulations.
"This is rampant. It isn't just one operator. This goes on everywhere in every part of the country," she charged. "They are loophole airlines."
If Schiavo is right, then the man keeping Loophole Air airborne is Fort Lauderdale attorney Michael Moulis, a former FAA prosecutor who has represented Guyanese pilot Brassington since the Teterboro Challenger crash four years ago.
30 Days in the hole
Moulis, who has a successful history of keeping shady charter flight operators flying, has something of a checkered past himself... Two years ago he was suspended from practice for 30 days by the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Supreme Court said Moulis “committed an act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, failed to provide competent representation to a client, failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, failed to keep a client reasonably informed and inappropriately withdrew from representing a client.”
Moulis had time to spare, however. No one was in any hurry. A two-year long FAA and NTSB investigations led to toothless sanctions, which Brassington was able to evade through the simple expedient of going out of business as the defunct Platinum Jet, and opening up under any of a number of brass plate front companies like Aviation Management Professionals Inc., which was set up by his brother Paul Brassington a year-and-a-half after the Teterboro crash.
Criminal charges, which weren’t filed until more than four years after the accident, came less than two weeks after the Obama Administration took office, leading to speculation that the indictment had been ‘held up” during the waning years of the Bush Administration.
Throughout this period, Moulis belligerently denied that his client did anything wrong. And he stonewalled the FAA, maintaining that his client Platinum Jet didn’t need to release records being sought by the FAA.
"Man, I need something to drink."
It’s a well-practiced tactic that’s worked for him before, most spectacularly after the crash of a charter plane in the Bahamas that killed teen sensation Aaliyah and eight others in August of 2001 led to a criminal investigation of his client.
The cause of Aaliyah’s crash was an overloaded airplane, the same cause ruled responsible for the Teterboro crash. And, like in the Teterboro crash, investigators found numerous flagrant violations of U.S. law that directly led to the deaths of nine people...
In that crash, the plane lifted off from Marsh Harbour Airport in the Bahamas, rose little more than 40 feet, banked left—then nose-dived into a marsh and burst into flame.
"Bodies were all about," says Marsh Harbour mortician Ernest Scott, who wrapped the deceased in fire blankets, then placed them in canvas body bags. "I've been on some gruesome ones, but this one was bad."
When emergency teams arrived at the muddy scene minutes later, they found Aaliyah some 20 feet from the fuselage, curled on her left side. She and five others had died instantly; Aaliyah's bodyguard Scott Gallin, 41, was barely alive in one of the fuselage remnants. "
"Man, I need something to drink," Gallin told mortician Ernest Scott. He did not survive the night.
FAA inspector who cleared doomed pilot, commits "suicide"
Moulis represented the shady Palm Beach Florida charter operator responsible for the flight.
Gilbert Chacon, the owner of Blackhawk International Airways, wasn’t someone anyone would describe as being above reproach. Chacon had a significant criminal record. He pled guilty in 1993 to bankruptcy fraud involving another charter service, in a $400 million insurance fraud run by a British scam artist from a safe haven in the Caribbean.
Sound familiar?
Investigation revealed that the pilot of the doomed plane had been busted for possession of crack cocaine, trafficking stolen airplane parts, theft and driving with a suspended license.
Three weeks after the Aaliyah crash, the FAA inspector in Fort Lauderdale who signed the crack-head pilot off as ready to fly committed suicide. The New York Post broke the story, but oddly neglected to identify the "suicided" FAA inspector.
After the Aaliyah crash, Moulis admitted his client Chacon’s culpability, then offered a “suffered enough” defense.
“My client knows he hired a bad pilot who killed nine people,” Moulis told reporters. “It cost him his career. He can't go to the Bahamas. He is done in aviation - but that's not good enough for the federal government.”
For responsibility in negligence leading directly to the deaths of nine people, attorney Moulis got his client Gilbert Chacon three years....
Three years of probation.
Up in the air without a leg to stand on
In the Teterboro crash, Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott McBride said the pilots had not received the training to fly paying passengers, and the company simply ignored the records and safety requirements. "This was a charter company that disregarded all the rules," said McBride.
"They were operating by the seat of their pants, trimming around the edges of safety and regulatory compliance. It clearly rose to the level of fraud. There was a continuous pattern in their efforts to deceive their clients, their brokers and the FAA," said Michael Drewniak of the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of New Jersey.
Platinum flights, including one the day before the accident on Feb. 2, 2005, altered records to make it look as though the jet "was operated within weight and balance limitation when it may not have been."
"Essentially, they were cooking the books," the investigation charged.
"This is a basic airmanship, Flying 101-type of thing," National Transportation Safety Board investigator Steve Demko told the board.
NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker blasted the crew's decision-making as "truly, truly disturbing."
The captain's employment history was sketchy. He last held a full-time flying job eight months before the accident, and he’d been fired twice for poor judgment and decision-making. And although he claimed to have type ratings on six different aircraft types, he couldn't produce a flight log.
The co-pilot was worse. He hadn't completed training to serve as a first officer, and even if he had, as a citizen of Venezuela in the U.S. on a tourist visa, he was ineligible to serve as a commercial pilot.
The crew did not have a passenger manifest. And in violation of U.S. laws barring flights by foreign entities between two U.S. points, chief executive officer Michael Francis Brassington was not a U.S. citizen.
A crash, a witch hunt, and a frenzy
Moulis was unfazed. "Just because we had a crash, they get into this frenzy. They just changed the law because of this accident."
"The F.A.A. has no clue what's going on with respect to this investigation,” Moulis told another newspaper. “And they don't even have the time or decency to talk to the NTSB and now they're on a witch-hunt."
Moulis told reporters, "For those guys to represent to you that that is somehow illegal, they need to go back to aviation school 101. The charges are bogus and part of a ‘witch hunt.’
Moulis left unexplained why he felt the FAA, FBI, and DEA were all on a witch hunt against Brassington, a man who they had let "walk" in a major drug trafficking bust five years earlier.
Brassington was the co-pilot on a Learjet belonging to terror flight school owner Wallace J. Hilliard, when it was surrounded by DEA agents brandishing sub-machine guns on a runway at Orlando Executive Airport in late July of 2000. Onboard, agents found 43 lbs of heroin, an amount known in the drug trade as “heavy weight.”
According to the Orlando Sentinel, it was the biggest heroin bust in Central Florida history.
During the same month as the heroin bust, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi began flying lessons at heroin Lear jet owner Wally Hilliard's flight school in Venice.
The link between Mohamed Atta’s presence at a flight school whose owner’s Learjet flies a drug run to South America and back each week for 39 weeks has never been investigated or explained.
All drugs are bad... Ours a little less so.
Hilliard’s plane was seized, and those aboard busted.
Or, at least, some of them were.
The pilot was let go, to the obvious distaste of the DEA Special Agent who filed the affidavit in court. Even so, his affidavit fails to even mention the co-pilot’s name. Brassington doesn’t even come up.
We first heard the name of the man who had co-piloted the doomed drug flight —Michael Francis Brassington—from aviation executives in Naples FL.
The link between Brassington and the heroin flight was confirmed by a former U.S. Customs Inspector in Fort Lauderdale, who lost his job after a run-in with Brassington.
“Brassington was a pilot that I came into contact with on April 6th, 2004 while working at the General Aviation Facility at the Ft. Lauderdale International Airport as a Customs Inspector,” James Leif Sanders told us.
“He had a ‘lookout’ from the DEA for heroin smuggling, which said he had copiloted a Lear jet (N351WB) on the 25th of July 2000 into Executive Airport in Orlando.”
"But he also had a letter from Customs stating that his record would be modified, so he would no longer receive close scrutiny when going through Customs. This may have been an attempt by Customs to illegally override a DEA lookout.
Why would one Federal agency, Customs, now a part of the Dept. of Homeland Security, want to "illegally override" a "lookout" placed by another, the DEA?
____________________________________
TOMMY:
OVERSIGHT TIP FOR PAT LEAHY AT US SEN JUD COMM:.....subpoena CHERTOFF (same guy who worked with MOSSAD RAT Mukasy to get the DANCING ISRAELI MOSSAD DEMOLITION TEAM out of jail after being arrested on 9/11 for CELEBRATING THE COMPLETION OF THE MOSSAD MISSION--murdering 3,000 Americans trapped inthe WTC).
What does CHERTOFF know about helping BRASSINGTON move coke behind a CHARTER AIRCRAFT FRONT?
THE KIKES got to go.
GET THE KIKES out of our NAT SEC STATE.
NOTE: CLICK BLOGPOST TITLE TO GET LINKED TO MADCOWMORNINGNEWS: see photos...good website.
Charter Company in Crash Ran Second Jet Off Runway
February 24 2009
by Daniel Hopsicker
Less than a year before the Teterboro crash of a Challenger corporate jet that ran off a runway and hurtled into traffic on a busy 6-lane highway on Feb 2 2005, the company responsible for that crash, Platinum Jet Management of Fort Lauderdale, ran a private jet off a runway at Peachtree-DeKalb Airport in Atlanta.
The Teterboro crash was so spectacular that it led all three evening newscasts. Later, an investigation held in the wake of the crash turned up damning evidence of a pattern of illegal activity on the part of the charter company so egregious the FAA came under rare criticism from another Federal agency, the NTSB.
The charter company's executives, including CEO and chief pilot Michael Brassington, were arrested on felony criminal charges two weeks ago.
That the company's pilots regularly experienced difficulties keeping their airplanes on the runway has not been reported until now.
We pieced together the story after finding a brief Associated Press dispatch about the incident:
"A business jet rolled off the runway at Peachtree-DeKalb Airport in north Atlanta Thursday afternoon," the Associated Press reported on Feb. 26, 2004.
"The Gulfstream 3...was landing on Runway 20 Left when it rolled off the end of the runway. It was registered to a Dallas-based company, 448 Alliance LLC."
We already knew that 448 Alliance, a Dallas outfit whose name will shortly prove important to this investigation, turned over both Gulfstream jets it owned to Platinum Jet.
But there was nothing on the plane marking it as belonging to any company or airline. Platinum Jet's name didn't surface in the Peachtree incident.
Nor did the twin-engine Challenger that crashed during takeoff at Teterboro carry any corporate or airline logo. No name was emblazoned on its tail.
The Man Behind "Loophole Air"
But former inspector general Mary Schiavo of the U.S. Department of Transportation says the airline it was flying for does have a name: She calls it "Loophole Airlines."
Schiavo, an outspoken critic of the nation's aviation regulators, said nobody knows how many other charter companies are doing the same thing that got Platinum into trouble. "The charter outfits don't have to file any reports," she said. "You only see it when there's a crash."
The crash sparked a federal criminal investigation that led to the recent 23-count indictment against Brassington, and four other executives of Platinum Jet Management.
Schiavo told the NJ Star-Ledger that the company that flew the jet was an unqualified charter operator, flying U.S. skies only by circumventing federal regulations.
"This is rampant. It isn't just one operator. This goes on everywhere in every part of the country," she charged. "They are loophole airlines."
If Schiavo is right, then the man keeping Loophole Air airborne is Fort Lauderdale attorney Michael Moulis, a former FAA prosecutor who has represented Guyanese pilot Brassington since the Teterboro Challenger crash four years ago.
30 Days in the hole
Moulis, who has a successful history of keeping shady charter flight operators flying, has something of a checkered past himself... Two years ago he was suspended from practice for 30 days by the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Supreme Court said Moulis “committed an act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, failed to provide competent representation to a client, failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, failed to keep a client reasonably informed and inappropriately withdrew from representing a client.”
Moulis had time to spare, however. No one was in any hurry. A two-year long FAA and NTSB investigations led to toothless sanctions, which Brassington was able to evade through the simple expedient of going out of business as the defunct Platinum Jet, and opening up under any of a number of brass plate front companies like Aviation Management Professionals Inc., which was set up by his brother Paul Brassington a year-and-a-half after the Teterboro crash.
Criminal charges, which weren’t filed until more than four years after the accident, came less than two weeks after the Obama Administration took office, leading to speculation that the indictment had been ‘held up” during the waning years of the Bush Administration.
Throughout this period, Moulis belligerently denied that his client did anything wrong. And he stonewalled the FAA, maintaining that his client Platinum Jet didn’t need to release records being sought by the FAA.
"Man, I need something to drink."
It’s a well-practiced tactic that’s worked for him before, most spectacularly after the crash of a charter plane in the Bahamas that killed teen sensation Aaliyah and eight others in August of 2001 led to a criminal investigation of his client.
The cause of Aaliyah’s crash was an overloaded airplane, the same cause ruled responsible for the Teterboro crash. And, like in the Teterboro crash, investigators found numerous flagrant violations of U.S. law that directly led to the deaths of nine people...
In that crash, the plane lifted off from Marsh Harbour Airport in the Bahamas, rose little more than 40 feet, banked left—then nose-dived into a marsh and burst into flame.
"Bodies were all about," says Marsh Harbour mortician Ernest Scott, who wrapped the deceased in fire blankets, then placed them in canvas body bags. "I've been on some gruesome ones, but this one was bad."
When emergency teams arrived at the muddy scene minutes later, they found Aaliyah some 20 feet from the fuselage, curled on her left side. She and five others had died instantly; Aaliyah's bodyguard Scott Gallin, 41, was barely alive in one of the fuselage remnants. "
"Man, I need something to drink," Gallin told mortician Ernest Scott. He did not survive the night.
FAA inspector who cleared doomed pilot, commits "suicide"
Moulis represented the shady Palm Beach Florida charter operator responsible for the flight.
Gilbert Chacon, the owner of Blackhawk International Airways, wasn’t someone anyone would describe as being above reproach. Chacon had a significant criminal record. He pled guilty in 1993 to bankruptcy fraud involving another charter service, in a $400 million insurance fraud run by a British scam artist from a safe haven in the Caribbean.
Sound familiar?
Investigation revealed that the pilot of the doomed plane had been busted for possession of crack cocaine, trafficking stolen airplane parts, theft and driving with a suspended license.
Three weeks after the Aaliyah crash, the FAA inspector in Fort Lauderdale who signed the crack-head pilot off as ready to fly committed suicide. The New York Post broke the story, but oddly neglected to identify the "suicided" FAA inspector.
After the Aaliyah crash, Moulis admitted his client Chacon’s culpability, then offered a “suffered enough” defense.
“My client knows he hired a bad pilot who killed nine people,” Moulis told reporters. “It cost him his career. He can't go to the Bahamas. He is done in aviation - but that's not good enough for the federal government.”
For responsibility in negligence leading directly to the deaths of nine people, attorney Moulis got his client Gilbert Chacon three years....
Three years of probation.
Up in the air without a leg to stand on
In the Teterboro crash, Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott McBride said the pilots had not received the training to fly paying passengers, and the company simply ignored the records and safety requirements. "This was a charter company that disregarded all the rules," said McBride.
"They were operating by the seat of their pants, trimming around the edges of safety and regulatory compliance. It clearly rose to the level of fraud. There was a continuous pattern in their efforts to deceive their clients, their brokers and the FAA," said Michael Drewniak of the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of New Jersey.
Platinum flights, including one the day before the accident on Feb. 2, 2005, altered records to make it look as though the jet "was operated within weight and balance limitation when it may not have been."
"Essentially, they were cooking the books," the investigation charged.
"This is a basic airmanship, Flying 101-type of thing," National Transportation Safety Board investigator Steve Demko told the board.
NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker blasted the crew's decision-making as "truly, truly disturbing."
The captain's employment history was sketchy. He last held a full-time flying job eight months before the accident, and he’d been fired twice for poor judgment and decision-making. And although he claimed to have type ratings on six different aircraft types, he couldn't produce a flight log.
The co-pilot was worse. He hadn't completed training to serve as a first officer, and even if he had, as a citizen of Venezuela in the U.S. on a tourist visa, he was ineligible to serve as a commercial pilot.
The crew did not have a passenger manifest. And in violation of U.S. laws barring flights by foreign entities between two U.S. points, chief executive officer Michael Francis Brassington was not a U.S. citizen.
A crash, a witch hunt, and a frenzy
Moulis was unfazed. "Just because we had a crash, they get into this frenzy. They just changed the law because of this accident."
"The F.A.A. has no clue what's going on with respect to this investigation,” Moulis told another newspaper. “And they don't even have the time or decency to talk to the NTSB and now they're on a witch-hunt."
Moulis told reporters, "For those guys to represent to you that that is somehow illegal, they need to go back to aviation school 101. The charges are bogus and part of a ‘witch hunt.’
Moulis left unexplained why he felt the FAA, FBI, and DEA were all on a witch hunt against Brassington, a man who they had let "walk" in a major drug trafficking bust five years earlier.
Brassington was the co-pilot on a Learjet belonging to terror flight school owner Wallace J. Hilliard, when it was surrounded by DEA agents brandishing sub-machine guns on a runway at Orlando Executive Airport in late July of 2000. Onboard, agents found 43 lbs of heroin, an amount known in the drug trade as “heavy weight.”
According to the Orlando Sentinel, it was the biggest heroin bust in Central Florida history.
During the same month as the heroin bust, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi began flying lessons at heroin Lear jet owner Wally Hilliard's flight school in Venice.
The link between Mohamed Atta’s presence at a flight school whose owner’s Learjet flies a drug run to South America and back each week for 39 weeks has never been investigated or explained.
All drugs are bad... Ours a little less so.
Hilliard’s plane was seized, and those aboard busted.
Or, at least, some of them were.
The pilot was let go, to the obvious distaste of the DEA Special Agent who filed the affidavit in court. Even so, his affidavit fails to even mention the co-pilot’s name. Brassington doesn’t even come up.
We first heard the name of the man who had co-piloted the doomed drug flight —Michael Francis Brassington—from aviation executives in Naples FL.
The link between Brassington and the heroin flight was confirmed by a former U.S. Customs Inspector in Fort Lauderdale, who lost his job after a run-in with Brassington.
“Brassington was a pilot that I came into contact with on April 6th, 2004 while working at the General Aviation Facility at the Ft. Lauderdale International Airport as a Customs Inspector,” James Leif Sanders told us.
“He had a ‘lookout’ from the DEA for heroin smuggling, which said he had copiloted a Lear jet (N351WB) on the 25th of July 2000 into Executive Airport in Orlando.”
"But he also had a letter from Customs stating that his record would be modified, so he would no longer receive close scrutiny when going through Customs. This may have been an attempt by Customs to illegally override a DEA lookout.
Why would one Federal agency, Customs, now a part of the Dept. of Homeland Security, want to "illegally override" a "lookout" placed by another, the DEA?
____________________________________
TOMMY:
OVERSIGHT TIP FOR PAT LEAHY AT US SEN JUD COMM:.....subpoena CHERTOFF (same guy who worked with MOSSAD RAT Mukasy to get the DANCING ISRAELI MOSSAD DEMOLITION TEAM out of jail after being arrested on 9/11 for CELEBRATING THE COMPLETION OF THE MOSSAD MISSION--murdering 3,000 Americans trapped inthe WTC).
What does CHERTOFF know about helping BRASSINGTON move coke behind a CHARTER AIRCRAFT FRONT?
THE KIKES got to go.
GET THE KIKES out of our NAT SEC STATE.
BUSH CRIME FAMILY DRUG MONEY LAUNDRY: Stanford...Madoff...SwissUBS...LEO WANTA TRUST FUND SWINDLE
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2006/nf20060523_2210.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
MAY 23, 2006
NEWS
By Dawn Kopecki
Intelligence Czar Can Waive SEC Rules
Now, the White House's top spymaster can cite national security to exempt businesses from reporting requirements
President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye.
Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn't be immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under this provision.
The timing of Bush's move is intriguing. On the same day the President signed the memo, Porter Goss resigned as director of the Central Intelligence Agency amid criticism of ineffectiveness and poor morale at the agency. Only six days later, on May 11, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had obtained millions of calling records of ordinary citizens provided by three major U.S. phone companies. Negroponte oversees both the CIA and NSA in his role as the administration's top intelligence official.
FEW ANSWERS. White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said the timing of the May 5 Presidential memo had no significance. "There was nothing specific that prompted this memo," Perino said.
In addition to refusing to explain why Bush decided to delegate this authority to Negroponte, the White House declined to say whether Bush or any other President has ever exercised the authority and allowed a company to avoid standard securities disclosure and accounting requirements. The White House wouldn't comment on whether Negroponte has granted such a waiver, and BusinessWeek so far hasn't identified any companies affected by the provision. Negroponte's office did not respond to requests for comment.
Securities-law experts said they were unfamiliar with the May 5 memo and the underlying Presidential authority at issue. John C. Coffee, a securities-law professor at Columbia University, speculated that defense contractors might want to use such an exemption to mask secret assignments for the Pentagon or CIA. "What you might hide is investments: You've spent umpteen million dollars that comes out of your working capital to build a plant in Iraq," which the government wants to keep secret. "That's the kind of scenario that would be plausible," Coffee said.
AUTHORITY GRANTED. William McLucas, the Securities & Exchange Commission's former enforcement chief, suggested that the ability to conceal financial information in the name of national security could lead some companies "to play fast and loose with their numbers." McLucas, a partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr in Washington, added: "It could be that you have a bunch of books and records out there that no one knows about."
The memo Bush signed on May 5, which was published seven days later in the Federal Register, had the unrevealing title "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence." In the document, Bush addressed Negroponte, saying: "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended."
A trip to the statute books showed that the amended version of the 1934 act states that "with respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States," the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate "books, records, and accounts" and maintaining "a system of internal accounting controls sufficient" to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with "generally accepted accounting principles."
MAY 23, 2006
NEWS
By Dawn Kopecki
Intelligence Czar Can Waive SEC Rules
Now, the White House's top spymaster can cite national security to exempt businesses from reporting requirements
President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye.
Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn't be immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under this provision.
The timing of Bush's move is intriguing. On the same day the President signed the memo, Porter Goss resigned as director of the Central Intelligence Agency amid criticism of ineffectiveness and poor morale at the agency. Only six days later, on May 11, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had obtained millions of calling records of ordinary citizens provided by three major U.S. phone companies. Negroponte oversees both the CIA and NSA in his role as the administration's top intelligence official.
FEW ANSWERS. White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said the timing of the May 5 Presidential memo had no significance. "There was nothing specific that prompted this memo," Perino said.
In addition to refusing to explain why Bush decided to delegate this authority to Negroponte, the White House declined to say whether Bush or any other President has ever exercised the authority and allowed a company to avoid standard securities disclosure and accounting requirements. The White House wouldn't comment on whether Negroponte has granted such a waiver, and BusinessWeek so far hasn't identified any companies affected by the provision. Negroponte's office did not respond to requests for comment.
Securities-law experts said they were unfamiliar with the May 5 memo and the underlying Presidential authority at issue. John C. Coffee, a securities-law professor at Columbia University, speculated that defense contractors might want to use such an exemption to mask secret assignments for the Pentagon or CIA. "What you might hide is investments: You've spent umpteen million dollars that comes out of your working capital to build a plant in Iraq," which the government wants to keep secret. "That's the kind of scenario that would be plausible," Coffee said.
AUTHORITY GRANTED. William McLucas, the Securities & Exchange Commission's former enforcement chief, suggested that the ability to conceal financial information in the name of national security could lead some companies "to play fast and loose with their numbers." McLucas, a partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr in Washington, added: "It could be that you have a bunch of books and records out there that no one knows about."
The memo Bush signed on May 5, which was published seven days later in the Federal Register, had the unrevealing title "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence." In the document, Bush addressed Negroponte, saying: "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended."
A trip to the statute books showed that the amended version of the 1934 act states that "with respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States," the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate "books, records, and accounts" and maintaining "a system of internal accounting controls sufficient" to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with "generally accepted accounting principles."
WAYNE MADSEN on Stanford laundering BUSH CRIME FAMILY'S DRUG MONEY
from WAYNEMADSENREPORT.COM:
http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/02/stanford-cog-in-us-intelligence-dirty.html
February 24, 2009
Stanford a cog in the U.S. intelligence dirty money laundering machine
By Wayne Madsen
“Sir” Allen Stanford appears to be yet another multi-billion dollar cog in a network of off-shore banks, corporate contrivances, and folding tent operations. Although Stanford is being investigated for a $8 billion fraud scheme, the U.S. Attorney for the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Stanford has “extensive” holdings on the island of St. Croix, told the Associated Press that the Obama Justice Department is “not actively pursuing” Stanford.
The Obama campaign gave $4,600 in donations from Stanford to the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless after the news broke about the investigation against Stanford’s firms.
A host of Democrats and Republicans reaped donations from Stanford, including jailed ex-Representative Bob Ney (R-OH), who was convicted in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal; former Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX); Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), and Senators John McCain (R-AZ), John Cornyn (R-TX), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX).
In 2006, Stanford obtained a knighthood from the Antiguan government thanks to his close relationship to Antiguan Prime Minister Spencer Baldwin, where Stanford International Bank maintains its headquarters. Stanford maintains dual U.S. and Antiguan citizenship. Stanford was also close to Antigua’s former Prime Minister Lester Bird, who was accused of massive corruption.
Ironically, it was while Baldwin’s United Progressive Party was in opposition in 2003 that he accused two of Bird’s ministers, Tourism Minister Molwyn Joseph and Planning Minister Gaston Browne, of accepting campaign donation bribes from Stanford in exchange for pubic lands in St. John’s, the Antiguan capital. Learning from his experience in donating to both Democrats and Republicans in the United States, Stanford ensures that both major parties in Antigua also received his monetary largess. It should also be noted that Antigua is a primary center for Russian-Israeli Mafia money laundering activities in the Caribbean.
That may come as unwelcome news not only to Stanford but to the CIA that could see its illegal money laundering operations [interrupted] if Stanford is arrested and tried. Of course, that may also be problematic since the Obama Justice Department has decided to maintain a Bush policy of invoking a privilege of state secrets in criminal and civil cases involving national security matters.
Last November 1, the Spanish news agency EFE reported that Hugo Chavez’s military intelligence agents raided Stanford International Bank in Caracas and investigated three Stanford Bank employees at the Venezuela branch who were believed to be U.S. intelligence agents.
Stanford International Bank was reported by EFE to have been founded “during the Great Depression.” The bank is part of the Stanford Financial Group that was reported to have $51 billion in assets. Stanford Capital Management, Stanford Group’s investment branch, managed a fund called Stanford Allocation Strategy. The investment arm is also under investigation.
On March 6, 2007, WMR reported: “WMR’s report about ‘Sir’ R. Allen Stanford and his Stanford Financial Group in Houston buying up land in Antigua and Barbuda and running roughshod over the government of that nation turned up an interesting important footnote to the story. Stanford’s Houston offices are directly across Westheimer Road in the part of the Galleria complex where Carlyle Group offices are located. Coincidence? Not with the Bush criminal cartel.”
The FBI is reportedly now investigating Stanford’s firms for laundering money for Mexico’s Gulf drug cartel. Stanford, Houston, off-shore banks, and drugs equal the perfect brew for another Bush family criminal cartel operation tied to the CIA.
Copyright © 2008 WayneMadenReport.com
Source
_______________________________________________________
http://sutherlandsalute.blogspot.com/2009/02/does-obama-know-what-cia-is-doing-to.html
Venezuela Arrests Soldiers Over Alleged Army Plot, Chavez Says
By Matthew Walter
Feb. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said soldiers suspected of conspiring in a plot to destabilize the government were arrested, adding the situation is under control.
Chavez, a self-proclaimed socialist who has accused the political opposition of trying to overthrow his government since he survived a brief coup in 2002, said the country’s intelligence agency uncovered a plan to infiltrate the Miraflores presidential palace. He made the comments yesterday on state television.
“We’ve arrested some soldiers, and they remain detained, who were in contact with a solder on the run in the U.S., protected by the U.S. government, sending messages about a so- called Operation Independence,” Chavez said.
The Venezuelan president is wrapping up a political campaign to amend the constitution to allow him to seek re-election as many times as he likes. The issue will go before voters on Feb. 15 and Chavez has said the political opposition has been planning violence in the country should it lose the election.
Venezuela is the biggest oil exporter in the Western Hemisphere and the fourth-biggest overseas supplier of the commodity to the U.S.
“We have the situation under control,” he said. “The country should be at peace.”
The government recovered rocket launchers and explosives that were part of the plot, Chavez said.
The president last September said there was a plot within the Venezuelan military to assassinate him and carry out a coup at the start of campaigns for state and city elections.
A poll by Caracas-based Datanalisis shows Venezuelans are evenly split before this weekend’s vote. In a January survey, 51.5 percent supported the amendment, while 48.1 percent were opposed. The survey of 1,300 people had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.72 percentage points.
Chavez said any plot to overthrow him will be defeated.
“The Venezuelan bourgeoisie will regret it,” he said. “The conspirators against the government will regret their campaign of aggression, of violence.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Walter in Caracas at mwalter4@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: February 12, 2009 01:51 EST
_____________________________________________________
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-assassination-of-hugo-chavez/
The Assassination of Hugo Chavez
by Greg Palast
Reporting from Lago Agrio, Ecuador
Wednesday November 14
Before The Lord spoke unto Pat Robertson and told him to endorse Rudy Giuliani, family man, for President, the Reverend got a message that higher powers wanted him to arrange a hit on another President:
"Hugo Chavez thinks we're trying to assassinate him. I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
Robertson has a tough time separating Church and Hate. But when the vicious vicar declared it was time to take out the President of Venezuela, he was simply channeling the wishes of the Supreme Authority, Dick Cheney.
I'm asking you to see the story they don't want you to see in the USA: from the original investigations filmed for BBC Television, "The Assassination of Hugo"- a special DVD documentary by myself and Rick Rowley. NOT for general release - ONLY available as a gift to donors to the not-for-profit Palast Investigative Fund. Check out the trailer for the film here.
Why must they kill Chavez?
With the help of guerrila cameraman Rick Rowley ("Fourth World War"), I flew to Caracas to get the answer - from Chavez himself. I also talked to the guy who took Chavez hostage in 2002. (I had to wear a wire for that one.)
The answer is right underneath Chavez' feet. Oil. How much? According to the inside documents that fell into my hands from the Department of Energy - LOTS of oil, five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.
The DVD includes Chavez himself, in our extended exclusive interviews. We go over the Bush plans - for his oil, and for his "elimination." Sing along with the crooning champion of the poor - or, as George Bush titles him, "a demagogue awash with oil money."
Watch the film - from Caracas malls to the oil tankers by helicopter - the story I guarantee you won't get on the Petroleum Broadcasting System.
PLUS two incredibly important reports: "Ecuador: Oiled and Despoiled" - my journey into the mud for Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, PLUS "Florida Con Salsa" - the theft of the Presidential Election in Mexico 2006.
Donate at least $50 and I'll sign'm and send'm to you - or to whomever you designate for the holidays.
Make that donation at least $75 and I'll also send you, signed, "Assassination" AND "The Elections Files," my investigations for BBC, from the original report that busted open the phony "felon" purge by Jeb Bush to never-before-released interviews with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and fired prosecutor David Iglesias on "caging" voters and the scheme to steal the next election.
Your tax-deductible donation keeps us digging for "Just The Facts, Ma'am." I'm writing this in the rain forest in Ecuador, where oil is prevalent as snakes- but more poisonous. We donate our films to Democracy Now. BBC pays for some of our effort - but not the expensive work of investigation. That's your job. YOU produce our work.
"Palast's stories are so relevant they threaten to alter history." - Chicago Tribune
"Palast … is twisted and maniacal." Hon. Katherine Harris
"America's best investigative reporter … and the funniest." Randi Rhodes, Air America Radio
**************
The Palast Investigative Fund is a 501c3 not-for-profit educational foundation. All donations are tax deductible. 100% of your donation goes to pay our out-of-pocket expenses and investigative team. (Note: Greg Palast takes no fee from the fund.) Make a donation and I'll send you a signed gift, personalized in appreciation for your help. Or write "NO GIFT" and we'll just send a note of our gratitude. Real reporting is real expensive - and you make it possible when Corporate Media won't
http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/02/stanford-cog-in-us-intelligence-dirty.html
February 24, 2009
Stanford a cog in the U.S. intelligence dirty money laundering machine
By Wayne Madsen
“Sir” Allen Stanford appears to be yet another multi-billion dollar cog in a network of off-shore banks, corporate contrivances, and folding tent operations. Although Stanford is being investigated for a $8 billion fraud scheme, the U.S. Attorney for the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Stanford has “extensive” holdings on the island of St. Croix, told the Associated Press that the Obama Justice Department is “not actively pursuing” Stanford.
The Obama campaign gave $4,600 in donations from Stanford to the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless after the news broke about the investigation against Stanford’s firms.
A host of Democrats and Republicans reaped donations from Stanford, including jailed ex-Representative Bob Ney (R-OH), who was convicted in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal; former Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX); Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), and Senators John McCain (R-AZ), John Cornyn (R-TX), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX).
In 2006, Stanford obtained a knighthood from the Antiguan government thanks to his close relationship to Antiguan Prime Minister Spencer Baldwin, where Stanford International Bank maintains its headquarters. Stanford maintains dual U.S. and Antiguan citizenship. Stanford was also close to Antigua’s former Prime Minister Lester Bird, who was accused of massive corruption.
Ironically, it was while Baldwin’s United Progressive Party was in opposition in 2003 that he accused two of Bird’s ministers, Tourism Minister Molwyn Joseph and Planning Minister Gaston Browne, of accepting campaign donation bribes from Stanford in exchange for pubic lands in St. John’s, the Antiguan capital. Learning from his experience in donating to both Democrats and Republicans in the United States, Stanford ensures that both major parties in Antigua also received his monetary largess. It should also be noted that Antigua is a primary center for Russian-Israeli Mafia money laundering activities in the Caribbean.
That may come as unwelcome news not only to Stanford but to the CIA that could see its illegal money laundering operations [interrupted] if Stanford is arrested and tried. Of course, that may also be problematic since the Obama Justice Department has decided to maintain a Bush policy of invoking a privilege of state secrets in criminal and civil cases involving national security matters.
Last November 1, the Spanish news agency EFE reported that Hugo Chavez’s military intelligence agents raided Stanford International Bank in Caracas and investigated three Stanford Bank employees at the Venezuela branch who were believed to be U.S. intelligence agents.
Stanford International Bank was reported by EFE to have been founded “during the Great Depression.” The bank is part of the Stanford Financial Group that was reported to have $51 billion in assets. Stanford Capital Management, Stanford Group’s investment branch, managed a fund called Stanford Allocation Strategy. The investment arm is also under investigation.
On March 6, 2007, WMR reported: “WMR’s report about ‘Sir’ R. Allen Stanford and his Stanford Financial Group in Houston buying up land in Antigua and Barbuda and running roughshod over the government of that nation turned up an interesting important footnote to the story. Stanford’s Houston offices are directly across Westheimer Road in the part of the Galleria complex where Carlyle Group offices are located. Coincidence? Not with the Bush criminal cartel.”
The FBI is reportedly now investigating Stanford’s firms for laundering money for Mexico’s Gulf drug cartel. Stanford, Houston, off-shore banks, and drugs equal the perfect brew for another Bush family criminal cartel operation tied to the CIA.
Copyright © 2008 WayneMadenReport.com
Source
_______________________________________________________
http://sutherlandsalute.blogspot.com/2009/02/does-obama-know-what-cia-is-doing-to.html
Venezuela Arrests Soldiers Over Alleged Army Plot, Chavez Says
By Matthew Walter
Feb. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said soldiers suspected of conspiring in a plot to destabilize the government were arrested, adding the situation is under control.
Chavez, a self-proclaimed socialist who has accused the political opposition of trying to overthrow his government since he survived a brief coup in 2002, said the country’s intelligence agency uncovered a plan to infiltrate the Miraflores presidential palace. He made the comments yesterday on state television.
“We’ve arrested some soldiers, and they remain detained, who were in contact with a solder on the run in the U.S., protected by the U.S. government, sending messages about a so- called Operation Independence,” Chavez said.
The Venezuelan president is wrapping up a political campaign to amend the constitution to allow him to seek re-election as many times as he likes. The issue will go before voters on Feb. 15 and Chavez has said the political opposition has been planning violence in the country should it lose the election.
Venezuela is the biggest oil exporter in the Western Hemisphere and the fourth-biggest overseas supplier of the commodity to the U.S.
“We have the situation under control,” he said. “The country should be at peace.”
The government recovered rocket launchers and explosives that were part of the plot, Chavez said.
The president last September said there was a plot within the Venezuelan military to assassinate him and carry out a coup at the start of campaigns for state and city elections.
A poll by Caracas-based Datanalisis shows Venezuelans are evenly split before this weekend’s vote. In a January survey, 51.5 percent supported the amendment, while 48.1 percent were opposed. The survey of 1,300 people had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.72 percentage points.
Chavez said any plot to overthrow him will be defeated.
“The Venezuelan bourgeoisie will regret it,” he said. “The conspirators against the government will regret their campaign of aggression, of violence.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Walter in Caracas at mwalter4@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: February 12, 2009 01:51 EST
_____________________________________________________
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-assassination-of-hugo-chavez/
The Assassination of Hugo Chavez
by Greg Palast
Reporting from Lago Agrio, Ecuador
Wednesday November 14
Before The Lord spoke unto Pat Robertson and told him to endorse Rudy Giuliani, family man, for President, the Reverend got a message that higher powers wanted him to arrange a hit on another President:
"Hugo Chavez thinks we're trying to assassinate him. I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
Robertson has a tough time separating Church and Hate. But when the vicious vicar declared it was time to take out the President of Venezuela, he was simply channeling the wishes of the Supreme Authority, Dick Cheney.
I'm asking you to see the story they don't want you to see in the USA: from the original investigations filmed for BBC Television, "The Assassination of Hugo"- a special DVD documentary by myself and Rick Rowley. NOT for general release - ONLY available as a gift to donors to the not-for-profit Palast Investigative Fund. Check out the trailer for the film here.
Why must they kill Chavez?
With the help of guerrila cameraman Rick Rowley ("Fourth World War"), I flew to Caracas to get the answer - from Chavez himself. I also talked to the guy who took Chavez hostage in 2002. (I had to wear a wire for that one.)
The answer is right underneath Chavez' feet. Oil. How much? According to the inside documents that fell into my hands from the Department of Energy - LOTS of oil, five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.
The DVD includes Chavez himself, in our extended exclusive interviews. We go over the Bush plans - for his oil, and for his "elimination." Sing along with the crooning champion of the poor - or, as George Bush titles him, "a demagogue awash with oil money."
Watch the film - from Caracas malls to the oil tankers by helicopter - the story I guarantee you won't get on the Petroleum Broadcasting System.
PLUS two incredibly important reports: "Ecuador: Oiled and Despoiled" - my journey into the mud for Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, PLUS "Florida Con Salsa" - the theft of the Presidential Election in Mexico 2006.
Donate at least $50 and I'll sign'm and send'm to you - or to whomever you designate for the holidays.
Make that donation at least $75 and I'll also send you, signed, "Assassination" AND "The Elections Files," my investigations for BBC, from the original report that busted open the phony "felon" purge by Jeb Bush to never-before-released interviews with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and fired prosecutor David Iglesias on "caging" voters and the scheme to steal the next election.
Your tax-deductible donation keeps us digging for "Just The Facts, Ma'am." I'm writing this in the rain forest in Ecuador, where oil is prevalent as snakes- but more poisonous. We donate our films to Democracy Now. BBC pays for some of our effort - but not the expensive work of investigation. That's your job. YOU produce our work.
"Palast's stories are so relevant they threaten to alter history." - Chicago Tribune
"Palast … is twisted and maniacal." Hon. Katherine Harris
"America's best investigative reporter … and the funniest." Randi Rhodes, Air America Radio
**************
The Palast Investigative Fund is a 501c3 not-for-profit educational foundation. All donations are tax deductible. 100% of your donation goes to pay our out-of-pocket expenses and investigative team. (Note: Greg Palast takes no fee from the fund.) Make a donation and I'll send you a signed gift, personalized in appreciation for your help. Or write "NO GIFT" and we'll just send a note of our gratitude. Real reporting is real expensive - and you make it possible when Corporate Media won't
MR HOLDER...OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS IS A FEDERAL OFFENCE...no?
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12444
Evasive Maneuvers
How the Justice Department is teaching other agencies to sidestep congressional investigations.
Barbara T. Dreyfuss | February 9, 2007 | web only
The newly elected Democratic leaders in Congress are gearing up for a broad array of oversight hearings and investigations of the Bush administration. However, they are likely to butt heads with a Justice Department intent on thwarting their efforts -- as Republican Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania did recently when they tried to scrutinize administration actions.
The Justice Department, which serves as legal counsel in court proceedings for other departments, has repeatedly gone beyond merely protecting its own actions from scrutiny. Even when Congress was in Republican hands, Justice Department officials advised other government departments on how to stonewall congressional review. These efforts now appear to be ramping up.
The Justice Department Legal Counsel's office recently held meetings with lawyers of other departments to discuss strategy for responding to congressional requests for documents and hearing appearances. In January, Senator Grassley charged at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the DOJ has started running training "events" for other offices of the executive branch, teaching them how to handle congressional inquiries and hearings. Grassley's office says they were tipped off to this by someone in the Justice Department worried about this new program.
Grassley voiced concern that the new training sessions are "lessons to stiff-arm Congress." He said he drew this conclusion from the "unnecessary hurdles and roadblocks from the department" he encountered in his recent efforts to investigate the FDA, the FBI, and the SEC while chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Responding to Grassley at the hearing, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales denied there was any "coordinated effort to try to coach them about how to answer questions." Rather, he said, "it's to make sure that we are providing the appropriate level of cooperation, because we do have an obligation -- to try to accommodate competing legitimate interests."
Grassley's exchange with Gonzales occurred during the first Judiciary Committee oversight hearing held by its new Democratic chairman, Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Leahy has expressed concern repeatedly over the years about DOJ's unresponsiveness to his questions. In December, the Justice Department rebuffed a request from him for documents on the detention of suspected terrorists. Leahy, Charles Schumer of New York, and other senators clashed with Gonzales at last month's concerning the DOJ's lack of cooperation with congressional inquiries into DOJ's own controversies, including charges of illegal wiretaps and sending detainees abroad to be tortured. Grassley criticized the DOJ for refusing for years to brief Congress about its investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, and accused it of "thumbing the nose at congressional oversight."
______________________
tommy:
Nobody in DUMFUCK LAND (US Sen Jud Comm...US HOUSE JUD Comm) ever once...bothered...talking to me about testifying under oath?
What THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM WHEN...CHENEY IS GONE NOW?
WHY HASN'T BEAN TESTIFIED UNDER THIS NEW BOGUS AUDACITY OF HOPE WHITE HOUSE?
Anybody got a clue...why DEMOCRAT FAGGOTS REFUSE TO TALK TO THOMAS S. BEAN?
_____________________________________
But Grassley moved beyond those issues in demanding to know if the Justice Department was also teaching other agencies to be evasive and stymie congressional inquiry through its training sessions. The senator was particularly concerned that some training sessions are being run by the Office of Legislative Affairs, which, he charged, was "the source of unnecessary and inappropriate foot-dragging in many of my oversight efforts over the years."
Before the hearing, Grassley had requested materials the DOJ was using in the training sessions, in order to question Gonzales about them. But the Attorney General claimed he had never received the request. Gonzales promised to find out why the documents weren't delivered. Grassley says he still hasn't received any materials from the DOJ and questions whether Justice is really making a "sincere effort" to respond.
Despite the fact that the Attorney General did not dispute Grassley's premise at the hearing, a Justice Department spokesman denied to the Prospect that the agency even has a "training program" on congressional hearings. But he acknowledged that if other executive agencies ask for it, DOJ does give "confidential advice on congressional oversight."
An activist Democratic Congress may give added back-up to several investigations, launched by both Grassley in the Finance Committee and Arlen Specter in the Judiciary Committee, that have provoked resistance from the DOJ. Grassley has conducted high-profile hearings on the FDA over the past several years, featuring a number of whistleblowers, and previously lambasted the DOJ for attempting to stall or frustrate his investigations of FDA and HHS.
Last summer, the Finance Committee was looking into the role of falsified clinical data in the FDA approval of a drug. After Grassley accused the Justice Department of working with HHS to obstruct that investigation, finance committee staff were blocked from interviewing FDA investigators by the Justice Department. Grassley took the extraordinary step of going directly to FDA offices to speak with FDA personnel, but was still not allowed access to them.
In a December hearing of the Judiciary Committee, just before Congress changed hands, Grassley and the panel's then-chairman, Specter, uncovered further evidence of Justice Department collusion in efforts to thwart congressional inquiry and intimidate whistleblowers. This involved the unheard-of step of subpoenaing confidential discussions between a whistleblower and congressional staff.
That hearing focused on charges, by former Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Gary Aguirre, that an investigation into insider trading by one of the largest hedge funds was squelched by SEC officials. Aguirre had wanted to take testimony from a prominent Wall Street figure, who was also a major fundraiser for President Bush. When he pressed the point, he was not only prevented from doing so -- he was fired.
After Aguirre wrote a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox in September 2005 exposing these events, the Inspector General of the SEC, Walter Stachnik, conducted a cursory investigation into Aguirre's accusations. Without even questioning Aguirre, but only talking to the SEC officials he had accused, the IG dismissed the allegations. Last week, in an interim report on their investigation into the entire matter, Grassley and Specter castigated the IG for a "seriously flawed" investigation.
After the IG's whitewash investigation, Aguirre went to the Senate Judiciary and Finance Committees, which began a serious investigation. Committee staff reviewed thousands of pages of material and questioned numerous witnesses. Under intense congressional scrutiny, the SEC reopened its inquiry into the hedge fund and the Inspector General renewed his review of SEC officials.
But the IG went further, much further, than merely reopening his investigation into SEC actions. He issued a subpoena to Aguirre, which went beyond a request for documents supporting his charges. It included an extraordinary demand, unheard-of by Grassley and his staff, for communication between the whistleblower and Senate investigators.
The Justice Department, acting as the IG's lawyer, attempted to enforce the subpoena. They did that even after Aguirre had provided 250 pages of details supporting his allegations.
Questioned repeatedly by senators at the December Judiciary Committee hearing as to why he needed congressional staff communications, the IG continually hid behind the Justice Department, which he said had advised him not to discuss it. "You may be playing footsy with an executive branch of government that wants to curb congressional inquiries even beyond this one" an exasperated Grassley warned.
Grassley and Specter raised "constitutional objections" to the subpoena with the Justice Department. They saw it as a direct attack on Congress's role as watchdog over the executive. Grassley told the Prospect that "if whistleblowers know that we would give out information that came to us, we're not going to have any whistleblowers come to us anymore. They have to trust us."
And Aguirre says the subpoena also punished whistleblowers -- he says he has "had to spend thousands of dollars on an attorney."
Specter, in releasing the interim report on the SEC investigation, labeled the subpoena a "preposterous" action. He emphasized that Congress has "constitutional oversight responsibilities, and we obviously cannot conduct those responsibilities if the information we glean is going to be subject to somebody else's review," He and Grassley made clear they intend to pursue it further.
The Justice Department and IG now seem to have backed off their demands for staff communications, after it became clear that the Senate's lawyer backed Grassley and Specter, and was ready to go to court. And so that confrontation with the Justice Department has receded. But with Democrats on the Hill launching a myriad of hearings and investigations, things are not likely to stay quiet for long.
Barbara T. Dreyfuss is a Prospect senior correspondent.
Evasive Maneuvers
How the Justice Department is teaching other agencies to sidestep congressional investigations.
Barbara T. Dreyfuss | February 9, 2007 | web only
The newly elected Democratic leaders in Congress are gearing up for a broad array of oversight hearings and investigations of the Bush administration. However, they are likely to butt heads with a Justice Department intent on thwarting their efforts -- as Republican Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania did recently when they tried to scrutinize administration actions.
The Justice Department, which serves as legal counsel in court proceedings for other departments, has repeatedly gone beyond merely protecting its own actions from scrutiny. Even when Congress was in Republican hands, Justice Department officials advised other government departments on how to stonewall congressional review. These efforts now appear to be ramping up.
The Justice Department Legal Counsel's office recently held meetings with lawyers of other departments to discuss strategy for responding to congressional requests for documents and hearing appearances. In January, Senator Grassley charged at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the DOJ has started running training "events" for other offices of the executive branch, teaching them how to handle congressional inquiries and hearings. Grassley's office says they were tipped off to this by someone in the Justice Department worried about this new program.
Grassley voiced concern that the new training sessions are "lessons to stiff-arm Congress." He said he drew this conclusion from the "unnecessary hurdles and roadblocks from the department" he encountered in his recent efforts to investigate the FDA, the FBI, and the SEC while chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Responding to Grassley at the hearing, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales denied there was any "coordinated effort to try to coach them about how to answer questions." Rather, he said, "it's to make sure that we are providing the appropriate level of cooperation, because we do have an obligation -- to try to accommodate competing legitimate interests."
Grassley's exchange with Gonzales occurred during the first Judiciary Committee oversight hearing held by its new Democratic chairman, Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Leahy has expressed concern repeatedly over the years about DOJ's unresponsiveness to his questions. In December, the Justice Department rebuffed a request from him for documents on the detention of suspected terrorists. Leahy, Charles Schumer of New York, and other senators clashed with Gonzales at last month's concerning the DOJ's lack of cooperation with congressional inquiries into DOJ's own controversies, including charges of illegal wiretaps and sending detainees abroad to be tortured. Grassley criticized the DOJ for refusing for years to brief Congress about its investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, and accused it of "thumbing the nose at congressional oversight."
______________________
tommy:
Nobody in DUMFUCK LAND (US Sen Jud Comm...US HOUSE JUD Comm) ever once...bothered...talking to me about testifying under oath?
What THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM WHEN...CHENEY IS GONE NOW?
WHY HASN'T BEAN TESTIFIED UNDER THIS NEW BOGUS AUDACITY OF HOPE WHITE HOUSE?
Anybody got a clue...why DEMOCRAT FAGGOTS REFUSE TO TALK TO THOMAS S. BEAN?
_____________________________________
But Grassley moved beyond those issues in demanding to know if the Justice Department was also teaching other agencies to be evasive and stymie congressional inquiry through its training sessions. The senator was particularly concerned that some training sessions are being run by the Office of Legislative Affairs, which, he charged, was "the source of unnecessary and inappropriate foot-dragging in many of my oversight efforts over the years."
Before the hearing, Grassley had requested materials the DOJ was using in the training sessions, in order to question Gonzales about them. But the Attorney General claimed he had never received the request. Gonzales promised to find out why the documents weren't delivered. Grassley says he still hasn't received any materials from the DOJ and questions whether Justice is really making a "sincere effort" to respond.
Despite the fact that the Attorney General did not dispute Grassley's premise at the hearing, a Justice Department spokesman denied to the Prospect that the agency even has a "training program" on congressional hearings. But he acknowledged that if other executive agencies ask for it, DOJ does give "confidential advice on congressional oversight."
An activist Democratic Congress may give added back-up to several investigations, launched by both Grassley in the Finance Committee and Arlen Specter in the Judiciary Committee, that have provoked resistance from the DOJ. Grassley has conducted high-profile hearings on the FDA over the past several years, featuring a number of whistleblowers, and previously lambasted the DOJ for attempting to stall or frustrate his investigations of FDA and HHS.
Last summer, the Finance Committee was looking into the role of falsified clinical data in the FDA approval of a drug. After Grassley accused the Justice Department of working with HHS to obstruct that investigation, finance committee staff were blocked from interviewing FDA investigators by the Justice Department. Grassley took the extraordinary step of going directly to FDA offices to speak with FDA personnel, but was still not allowed access to them.
In a December hearing of the Judiciary Committee, just before Congress changed hands, Grassley and the panel's then-chairman, Specter, uncovered further evidence of Justice Department collusion in efforts to thwart congressional inquiry and intimidate whistleblowers. This involved the unheard-of step of subpoenaing confidential discussions between a whistleblower and congressional staff.
That hearing focused on charges, by former Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Gary Aguirre, that an investigation into insider trading by one of the largest hedge funds was squelched by SEC officials. Aguirre had wanted to take testimony from a prominent Wall Street figure, who was also a major fundraiser for President Bush. When he pressed the point, he was not only prevented from doing so -- he was fired.
After Aguirre wrote a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox in September 2005 exposing these events, the Inspector General of the SEC, Walter Stachnik, conducted a cursory investigation into Aguirre's accusations. Without even questioning Aguirre, but only talking to the SEC officials he had accused, the IG dismissed the allegations. Last week, in an interim report on their investigation into the entire matter, Grassley and Specter castigated the IG for a "seriously flawed" investigation.
After the IG's whitewash investigation, Aguirre went to the Senate Judiciary and Finance Committees, which began a serious investigation. Committee staff reviewed thousands of pages of material and questioned numerous witnesses. Under intense congressional scrutiny, the SEC reopened its inquiry into the hedge fund and the Inspector General renewed his review of SEC officials.
But the IG went further, much further, than merely reopening his investigation into SEC actions. He issued a subpoena to Aguirre, which went beyond a request for documents supporting his charges. It included an extraordinary demand, unheard-of by Grassley and his staff, for communication between the whistleblower and Senate investigators.
The Justice Department, acting as the IG's lawyer, attempted to enforce the subpoena. They did that even after Aguirre had provided 250 pages of details supporting his allegations.
Questioned repeatedly by senators at the December Judiciary Committee hearing as to why he needed congressional staff communications, the IG continually hid behind the Justice Department, which he said had advised him not to discuss it. "You may be playing footsy with an executive branch of government that wants to curb congressional inquiries even beyond this one" an exasperated Grassley warned.
Grassley and Specter raised "constitutional objections" to the subpoena with the Justice Department. They saw it as a direct attack on Congress's role as watchdog over the executive. Grassley told the Prospect that "if whistleblowers know that we would give out information that came to us, we're not going to have any whistleblowers come to us anymore. They have to trust us."
And Aguirre says the subpoena also punished whistleblowers -- he says he has "had to spend thousands of dollars on an attorney."
Specter, in releasing the interim report on the SEC investigation, labeled the subpoena a "preposterous" action. He emphasized that Congress has "constitutional oversight responsibilities, and we obviously cannot conduct those responsibilities if the information we glean is going to be subject to somebody else's review," He and Grassley made clear they intend to pursue it further.
The Justice Department and IG now seem to have backed off their demands for staff communications, after it became clear that the Senate's lawyer backed Grassley and Specter, and was ready to go to court. And so that confrontation with the Justice Department has receded. But with Democrats on the Hill launching a myriad of hearings and investigations, things are not likely to stay quiet for long.
Barbara T. Dreyfuss is a Prospect senior correspondent.
ANOTHER story the BILL "luffaboy sex criminal" O'REILLY at FOX DISINFO FAGGOTNEWS ignores...as part of rightwing cop corruption disinfo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/
Child prostitutes rescued in US
The operation targeted the trafficking of children for prostitution
US authorities have rescued nearly 50 child prostitutes - some as young as 13 - in a nationwide operation against the trafficking of children for sex.
More than 570 suspects were arrested during the action, which took place over three nights.
FBI agents and local police forces were involved in the operations which spanned some 29 cities.
Officials say a 16-year-old girl who recruits children as prostitutes is being sought as a priority.
Special Agent Melissa Morrow, of Washington's FBI, said adult prostitutes who were among those arrested tipped authorities off about the girl.
"She is currently 16 and started when she was 13," Agent Morrow said.
"Now she is out there recruiting other juveniles as well," she said, adding that finding her was "at the top of our list", the Associated Press news agency reported.
Cycle of violence
The ages of teenage prostitutes rescued in Operation Cross Country III ranged from 13 to 17.
The FBI said 571 people were arrested on suspicion of the trafficking children for prostitution and solicitation.
"We continue to pursue those who exploit our nation's children," said FBI Director Robert S Mueller III.
"We may not be able to return their innocence but we can remove them from this cycle of abuse and violence."
____________________________
tommy:
Historically, the COPS HAVE ALWAYS TAKEN PAYOFFS FROM PIMPS.
PIMPS are the slime...behind this child sex third world nightmare.
MUELLER deserves credit for this NEW UNKNOWN WAR ON PIMPS and SCUMBAGS.
NO 0THER FBI DIRECTOR HAS ever opened a serious war on EVIL IN OUR COMMUNITIES--The FUCKING SCUMBAG PIMPS with all the money to seize using CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS.
Child prostitutes rescued in US
The operation targeted the trafficking of children for prostitution
US authorities have rescued nearly 50 child prostitutes - some as young as 13 - in a nationwide operation against the trafficking of children for sex.
More than 570 suspects were arrested during the action, which took place over three nights.
FBI agents and local police forces were involved in the operations which spanned some 29 cities.
Officials say a 16-year-old girl who recruits children as prostitutes is being sought as a priority.
Special Agent Melissa Morrow, of Washington's FBI, said adult prostitutes who were among those arrested tipped authorities off about the girl.
"She is currently 16 and started when she was 13," Agent Morrow said.
"Now she is out there recruiting other juveniles as well," she said, adding that finding her was "at the top of our list", the Associated Press news agency reported.
Cycle of violence
The ages of teenage prostitutes rescued in Operation Cross Country III ranged from 13 to 17.
The FBI said 571 people were arrested on suspicion of the trafficking children for prostitution and solicitation.
"We continue to pursue those who exploit our nation's children," said FBI Director Robert S Mueller III.
"We may not be able to return their innocence but we can remove them from this cycle of abuse and violence."
____________________________
tommy:
Historically, the COPS HAVE ALWAYS TAKEN PAYOFFS FROM PIMPS.
PIMPS are the slime...behind this child sex third world nightmare.
MUELLER deserves credit for this NEW UNKNOWN WAR ON PIMPS and SCUMBAGS.
NO 0THER FBI DIRECTOR HAS ever opened a serious war on EVIL IN OUR COMMUNITIES--The FUCKING SCUMBAG PIMPS with all the money to seize using CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS.
Major Crucial Story that BILL "luffa boy sex criminal" O'REILLY at FOX NEWS ignores while disinfoing America...When do Governors refuse Fed Money?????
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/24/schumer-multiple-choice/
Schumer on governors rejecting recovery funds: The package is not ‘multiple choice.’
In response to several Republican governors declaring their intention to reject portions of the recently signed economic recovery package, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sent a letter to OMB Director Peter Orszag on Tuesday arguing that the package does not allow governors to opt out of funding for particular portions of the bill. He writes, “No one would dispute that these governors should be given the choice as to whether to accept the funds or not.
But it should not be multiple choice“:
As you know, Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation.
Today, Govs. Phil Bredesen (D-TN) and Gov. John Lynch (D-NH) became the first Democratic governors to suggest that they would follow the GOP’s ill-advised lead in rejecting some of the stimulus funding. “We are evaluating this piece of money, whether it makes sense for us to take it. We may well be one of the states that say we can’t take on that portion of it,” Bredesen said in reference to the package’s funding for the expansion of unemployment insurance
___________________________________________________________
http://www.prisonplanet.com/lawmaker-warns-of-forced-servitude-under-obama.html
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
New Hampshire state representative Dan Itse, who is one of many lawmakers leading the charge to assert state sovereignty against federal encroachment, has warned that the Obama administration seeks to institute “involuntary servitude”.
Appearing on Fox News to discuss the states’ rights movement, Itse told hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade, “This is about drawing a line in the sand and saying we’ve tolerated usurpations for so long but we’re not going to tolerate you violating the constitution, we’re going to hold you accountable.”
Asked if his warning about involuntary servitude under Obama meant young people being forced to attend community service, Itse responded, “Exactly, I mean, if you are required to do a job against your will with a pay scale not set by you or not agreed to by you, that’s involuntary servitude.”
Despite denials that Obama plans to institute a mandatory program of national service, his original change.gov website stated that Americans would be “required” to complete “50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year”. The text was only later changed to state that Americans would be “encouraged” to undertake such programs.
In addition, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, publicly stated his intention to help create “universal civil defense training” in 2006. Such fears were also stoked when Obama himself said that a “national civilian security force,” that is “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military was required.
___________________________________________________________
http://newworldliberty.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/majority-of-us-states-join-sovereignty-movement-assert-10th-amendment-rights/
Majority Of U.S. States Join Sovereignty Movement, Assert 10th Amendment Rights
February 23, 2009
A majority of states have bills passed or have proposed bill which affirm 10th Amendment rights. Some affirm additional rights and/or give specific reasons. New Hampshire has written the most aggressive legislation.
With the economy collapsing, it is a very real and immediate danger that the federal government can turn into a completely criminal and fascist government. They’ll put foreign troops on their streets. They’ll grab people to put in forced labor or concentration camps if they are unemployed or protesting. They’ll conduct experiments on these prisoners.
This is especially true since a private corporation owned by a small group of people, who own over half the world’s wealth, control our currency and monetary policy through the Federal Reserve. They also have such power over the world as a whole through the World Bank, IMF, most other national central banks, numerous well-funded non-government organizations, and numerous corrupted government officials.
The banks want the economy to collapse so they can grab real assets and power. Their whole monetary system is a giant ponzi scheme designed to fail because money is based on the issuance of debt, and the interest owed is not put into the system except through more debt with more interest.
The stock market has dropped 50% in value since this started last year. This is a great depression. The unemployment will rise. The spending of the two bailouts plus the trillions the Federal Reserve has printed will cause inflation to rise sharply. This same situation happened to the Soviet Union. This is not just an economic recession. This is not just about mortgages since the value of mortgages is much less than the spending packages though the financial releveraging of the mortgages in the form of financial derivatives has magnified the problem.
This is largely due to the fact that we’ve been existing on borrowed time running huge trade deficits and growing debt exponentially. Our assets now exceed our debt. We owe more interest than we can possibly earn. The debt ponzi scheme our currency is based has busted and has started the process of collapse. We can’t spend our way out of this because we’re cash and out of credit.
This group of men who own most of the world’s currencies and wealth want complete centralized control of printing money. They also want a powerful undemocratic regional and world government which can usurp the sovereignty of national governments. They want more European Unions. They want a stronger United Nations. They want to push their own agendas, which include population reduction through eugenics. The threat is real and well documented in policy documents and in the main stream press.
The Federal Reserve is essentially doing to the United States exactly what the IMF and World Bank do to third world nations. Unless we wake up and get our head out of our fluoride and Prozac ass, we’re going to find us as a third world nation, if not in the middle of World War III and the Fourth Reich.
The only way we can stop the U.S. government and these banks is through the states. If the states are united, the people are united. If the people are united, the U.S. government ceases to function, and the states are able to reform a functioning and lawful U.S. government.
Armed rebellion is not going to work. It will just result in a lot of dead people because the U.S. government has excessive firepower. Violent rebellion is exactly what the men in control of our money want.
I encourage everyone to write, email, or call their state legislatures to encourage the passage of such bills. You may also wish to contact your federal senators and representative letting them know you’ve lost faith in their ability to represent the people of the United States and are going to your state representatives.
We need stronger legislation with stronger teeth to make a stand peacefully and legally. We must act to prevent what is happening in Arcadia, Iowa, with the Iowa National Guard training for door-to-door gun confiscation. We can’t allow the U.S. government to continue to usurp state sovereignty. If we allow the U.S. government to do this, we’re going to have a lot of dead people in this nation because a lot of people aren’t going to give up their guns and aren’t going to tolerate the U.S. military, corporate militias, and foreign troops invading their communities and homes.
The states may be forced to stand down. However, we started the process of thinking locally to solve our problems and make it through these tough times. We want local, responsible, and focused local law enforcement to maintain order. We don’t want foreign troops and the U.S. military to do this for us.
Whether you agree with everything I put forth or not, a majority of the people do believe the U.S. government is corrupt, out-of-control, and don’t represent the interests of the people. If you don’t agree, you haven’t done the research nor have you paid close enough attention to the news. We’re on the verge of major crisis and change.
Here are a list of states who have passed or proposed bills to affirm 10th Amendment rights. We need to continue to encourage the states to take more specific action because of the very real dangers. I’ll try to keep this list updated with links.
2009: Arkansas - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues
2009: Arizona - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment
1994: California - 10th Amendment
1995/96: Georgia - 10th Amendment
2009: Georgia - 10th Amendment
2009: Kansas - 10th Amendment
1997/98: Louisiana - Sovereignty Constitutional Amendment
2009: Michigan - 10th Amendment
2009: Minnesota - 10th Amendment
2009: Missouri - Freedom of Choice Act (Abortion), 10th Amendment
2009: Montana - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, 2nd Amendment
2009: New Hampshire - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Federal Reserve, Taxes, Martial Law, 2nd Amendment, Draft/War, Patriot Act, Labor Camps, 1st Amendment
2008: Oklahoma - 10th Amendment, (Other Legislation: No Child Left Behind, Real ID Act)
2009: Oklahoma - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues
2009: South Carolina - 9th Amendment, 10 Amendment, Martial Law and Related, 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment
2009: Tennessee - 10th Amendment
2009: Texas - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues
2009: Utah - Real ID Act
2009: Washington - 10th Amendment
Republic of Lakotah - Full Independence
* Proposed: Alabama - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment
* Proposed: Alaska
* 1994: Colorado - 10th Amendment
* 1995: Florida - 10th Amendment
* 2008: Hawaii - Full Independence
* Proposed: Idaho [HJM RS18517] - 10th Amendment
* 2009: Indiana - 10th Amendment
* 2009: Iowa - 10th Amendment
* Proposed: Maine
* Proposed: Nevada
* Proposed: Ohio - 10th Amendment
* Proposed: Pennsylvania - 10th Amendment
* Proposed: Virginia - 10th Amendment
* Proposed: West Virginia - Same As New Hampshire
* Some are not verified with the actual state and may have not yet been proposed or passed in the state.
Schumer on governors rejecting recovery funds: The package is not ‘multiple choice.’
In response to several Republican governors declaring their intention to reject portions of the recently signed economic recovery package, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sent a letter to OMB Director Peter Orszag on Tuesday arguing that the package does not allow governors to opt out of funding for particular portions of the bill. He writes, “No one would dispute that these governors should be given the choice as to whether to accept the funds or not.
But it should not be multiple choice“:
As you know, Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation.
Today, Govs. Phil Bredesen (D-TN) and Gov. John Lynch (D-NH) became the first Democratic governors to suggest that they would follow the GOP’s ill-advised lead in rejecting some of the stimulus funding. “We are evaluating this piece of money, whether it makes sense for us to take it. We may well be one of the states that say we can’t take on that portion of it,” Bredesen said in reference to the package’s funding for the expansion of unemployment insurance
___________________________________________________________
http://www.prisonplanet.com/lawmaker-warns-of-forced-servitude-under-obama.html
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
New Hampshire state representative Dan Itse, who is one of many lawmakers leading the charge to assert state sovereignty against federal encroachment, has warned that the Obama administration seeks to institute “involuntary servitude”.
Appearing on Fox News to discuss the states’ rights movement, Itse told hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade, “This is about drawing a line in the sand and saying we’ve tolerated usurpations for so long but we’re not going to tolerate you violating the constitution, we’re going to hold you accountable.”
Asked if his warning about involuntary servitude under Obama meant young people being forced to attend community service, Itse responded, “Exactly, I mean, if you are required to do a job against your will with a pay scale not set by you or not agreed to by you, that’s involuntary servitude.”
Despite denials that Obama plans to institute a mandatory program of national service, his original change.gov website stated that Americans would be “required” to complete “50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year”. The text was only later changed to state that Americans would be “encouraged” to undertake such programs.
In addition, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, publicly stated his intention to help create “universal civil defense training” in 2006. Such fears were also stoked when Obama himself said that a “national civilian security force,” that is “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military was required.
___________________________________________________________
http://newworldliberty.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/majority-of-us-states-join-sovereignty-movement-assert-10th-amendment-rights/
Majority Of U.S. States Join Sovereignty Movement, Assert 10th Amendment Rights
February 23, 2009
A majority of states have bills passed or have proposed bill which affirm 10th Amendment rights. Some affirm additional rights and/or give specific reasons. New Hampshire has written the most aggressive legislation.
With the economy collapsing, it is a very real and immediate danger that the federal government can turn into a completely criminal and fascist government. They’ll put foreign troops on their streets. They’ll grab people to put in forced labor or concentration camps if they are unemployed or protesting. They’ll conduct experiments on these prisoners.
This is especially true since a private corporation owned by a small group of people, who own over half the world’s wealth, control our currency and monetary policy through the Federal Reserve. They also have such power over the world as a whole through the World Bank, IMF, most other national central banks, numerous well-funded non-government organizations, and numerous corrupted government officials.
The banks want the economy to collapse so they can grab real assets and power. Their whole monetary system is a giant ponzi scheme designed to fail because money is based on the issuance of debt, and the interest owed is not put into the system except through more debt with more interest.
The stock market has dropped 50% in value since this started last year. This is a great depression. The unemployment will rise. The spending of the two bailouts plus the trillions the Federal Reserve has printed will cause inflation to rise sharply. This same situation happened to the Soviet Union. This is not just an economic recession. This is not just about mortgages since the value of mortgages is much less than the spending packages though the financial releveraging of the mortgages in the form of financial derivatives has magnified the problem.
This is largely due to the fact that we’ve been existing on borrowed time running huge trade deficits and growing debt exponentially. Our assets now exceed our debt. We owe more interest than we can possibly earn. The debt ponzi scheme our currency is based has busted and has started the process of collapse. We can’t spend our way out of this because we’re cash and out of credit.
This group of men who own most of the world’s currencies and wealth want complete centralized control of printing money. They also want a powerful undemocratic regional and world government which can usurp the sovereignty of national governments. They want more European Unions. They want a stronger United Nations. They want to push their own agendas, which include population reduction through eugenics. The threat is real and well documented in policy documents and in the main stream press.
The Federal Reserve is essentially doing to the United States exactly what the IMF and World Bank do to third world nations. Unless we wake up and get our head out of our fluoride and Prozac ass, we’re going to find us as a third world nation, if not in the middle of World War III and the Fourth Reich.
The only way we can stop the U.S. government and these banks is through the states. If the states are united, the people are united. If the people are united, the U.S. government ceases to function, and the states are able to reform a functioning and lawful U.S. government.
Armed rebellion is not going to work. It will just result in a lot of dead people because the U.S. government has excessive firepower. Violent rebellion is exactly what the men in control of our money want.
I encourage everyone to write, email, or call their state legislatures to encourage the passage of such bills. You may also wish to contact your federal senators and representative letting them know you’ve lost faith in their ability to represent the people of the United States and are going to your state representatives.
We need stronger legislation with stronger teeth to make a stand peacefully and legally. We must act to prevent what is happening in Arcadia, Iowa, with the Iowa National Guard training for door-to-door gun confiscation. We can’t allow the U.S. government to continue to usurp state sovereignty. If we allow the U.S. government to do this, we’re going to have a lot of dead people in this nation because a lot of people aren’t going to give up their guns and aren’t going to tolerate the U.S. military, corporate militias, and foreign troops invading their communities and homes.
The states may be forced to stand down. However, we started the process of thinking locally to solve our problems and make it through these tough times. We want local, responsible, and focused local law enforcement to maintain order. We don’t want foreign troops and the U.S. military to do this for us.
Whether you agree with everything I put forth or not, a majority of the people do believe the U.S. government is corrupt, out-of-control, and don’t represent the interests of the people. If you don’t agree, you haven’t done the research nor have you paid close enough attention to the news. We’re on the verge of major crisis and change.
Here are a list of states who have passed or proposed bills to affirm 10th Amendment rights. We need to continue to encourage the states to take more specific action because of the very real dangers. I’ll try to keep this list updated with links.
2009: Arkansas - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues
2009: Arizona - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment
1994: California - 10th Amendment
1995/96: Georgia - 10th Amendment
2009: Georgia - 10th Amendment
2009: Kansas - 10th Amendment
1997/98: Louisiana - Sovereignty Constitutional Amendment
2009: Michigan - 10th Amendment
2009: Minnesota - 10th Amendment
2009: Missouri - Freedom of Choice Act (Abortion), 10th Amendment
2009: Montana - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, 2nd Amendment
2009: New Hampshire - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Federal Reserve, Taxes, Martial Law, 2nd Amendment, Draft/War, Patriot Act, Labor Camps, 1st Amendment
2008: Oklahoma - 10th Amendment, (Other Legislation: No Child Left Behind, Real ID Act)
2009: Oklahoma - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues
2009: South Carolina - 9th Amendment, 10 Amendment, Martial Law and Related, 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment
2009: Tennessee - 10th Amendment
2009: Texas - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues
2009: Utah - Real ID Act
2009: Washington - 10th Amendment
Republic of Lakotah - Full Independence
* Proposed: Alabama - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment
* Proposed: Alaska
* 1994: Colorado - 10th Amendment
* 1995: Florida - 10th Amendment
* 2008: Hawaii - Full Independence
* Proposed: Idaho [HJM RS18517] - 10th Amendment
* 2009: Indiana - 10th Amendment
* 2009: Iowa - 10th Amendment
* Proposed: Maine
* Proposed: Nevada
* Proposed: Ohio - 10th Amendment
* Proposed: Pennsylvania - 10th Amendment
* Proposed: Virginia - 10th Amendment
* Proposed: West Virginia - Same As New Hampshire
* Some are not verified with the actual state and may have not yet been proposed or passed in the state.
OBAMA'S End Game to destroy America?
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1210.htm
February 24 2009
US Orders Project ENDGAME To Begin, 775,000 Americans Targeted For Arrest
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers (Traducción al Español abajo)
A stunning Russian Foreign Ministry report is stating today that the President Obama has secretly ordered the ‘immediate’ opening of America’s vast gulag of concentration camps, built since 2001 and estimated able to hold a further 1 million of their citizens, which is aside from the 2.3 million currently imprisoned in what has become the World’s largest Prison Nation in all of history, in what they are calling Project ENDGAME.
These reports say that President Obama’s administration is being driven by the ‘outright fear’ over what they say will be an ‘explosion’ of massive social upheaval this coming summer due to their Nations economic collapse which has nearly totally destroyed their ability to maintain their food stocks as tens of thousands of US farmers have had to resort to the mass slaughter of their bird flocks, swine and cattle herds they are unable to feed due to their not being able to gain access to their much needed Farm Operating Loans they survive on until their crops come in and their flocks and herds are ready for market.
The American farmers being cut off from these operating loans is eerily reminiscent of the 1930’s Great Depression which likewise saw the total collapse of the United States being able to feed itself and which Russian historian Boris Borisov has estimated killed over 10 million Americans.
It is important to note that Dr. Borisov’s seminal research on the massive numbers of Americans killed during their Great Depression is still banned from being published in the United States though the figures supporting his claims come from the US’s own government compiled statistics, and as we can read as reported by the Russia Today News Service:
“As I was doing comparative research of the American Great Depression in the 1930s, and the Great Depression of the 1990s in Russia, I grew interested in the social dimension of the tragedy. It was logical that I looked up official American documents and found out that the discrepancies were so obvious that any independent researcher would not but have doubt about the official U.S. statistic data. All appears to be rather interesting. I will come to that later.
The U.S. Congress added fuel to the fire by adopting resolutions nearly every year blaming the Soviet government for alleged staged famine in the 1930s in Ukraine. The first resolution came in 1988, 50 years after the events described. The current members of Congress wonder about the following, and I quote, “people in the government were aware of what was going on, but did not do anything to help the starving”.
.......
To the vast gulag of new concentration camps built for those American citizens targeted by their government of ‘immediate’ arrest we can further read as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle News Service:
“Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of “an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.”
“Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
___________________
tommy:
DEATH CAMPS...WORK TO DEATH CAMPS....NAZI AMERICAN HOLACAUSTIC FUTURE under Barack "Audacity of Hope" OBAMA?
____________________
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
___________________
tommy:
ERIC HOLDER AND OBAMA have done nothing....to get THE WAR COMMISSIONS ACT thrown out on Constitutional grounds?
This is an ENABLING LAW straight out of Hitler's playbook?
Not one punk cocksucking idiot Democrat has ever thought about PUTTING THE WAR COMMISSIONS ACT ON TRIAL AT THE US SUPREME COURT?
______________________
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.”
Reports from the United States are also reporting that for the first time since their Civil War, US Troops are being trained to take over whole villages and towns to capture and arrest anyone they deem a threat, and as we can read of one such US Military Unit in Iowa:
“The Carroll National Guard unit will train on urban military operations by holding a four-day exercise at Arcadia. The purpose of the April 2-5 drill will be to gather intelligence, then search for and apprehend a suspected weapons dealer, according to Sgt. Mike Kots, readiness NCO for Alpha Company.
Citizens, law enforcement, media and other supporters will participate.
Troops will spend Thursday, April 2, staging at a forward operations base at Carroll. The next day company leaders will conduct reconnaissance and begin patrolling the streets of Arcadia to identify possible locations of the weapons dealer.
The primary phase will be done Saturday, April 4, when convoys will be deployed from Carroll to Arcadia. Pictures of the arms dealer will be shown in Arcadia, and soldiers will go door to door asking if residents have seen the suspect.
Soldiers will knock only at households that have agreed to participate in the drill, Kots noted.
“Once credible intelligence has been gathered," said Kots, "portions of the town will be road-blocked and more in-depth searches of homes and vehicles will be conducted in accordance with the residents' wishes.
“One of the techniques we use in today's political environment is cordon and knock," Kots explained. "We ask for the head of the household, get permission to search, then have them open doors and cupboards. The homeowner maintains control. We peer over their shoulder, and the soldier uses the homeowner's body language and position to protect him."
During this phase of the operation, troops will interact with residents and media while implementing crowd-control measures and possibly treating and evacuating injured persons. The unit will use a Blackhawk helicopter for overhead command and control, and to simulate medevacs. The drill will culminate in the apprehension of the suspected arms dealer.”
The sheer Orwellian aspect of US Military Officials and US Propaganda Media Organs using their own citizens to assist in the apprehension of their family, friends and neighbors labeled as ‘enemies of the state’ are too chilling to comprehend, but become downright frightening when coupled with the news that the US Government is now moving to cut off access to all of their citizens to the ammunition they would need to defend themselves against these fascist barbarians.
Virtually unknown to the masses of gun owning Americans is that their fears of having their government confiscate their guns was never the greatest one to have, but to the taking away all of these peoples access to the ammunition needed for their guns is what the ‘master plan’ for subjugating them has always been, and as we can read:
“It looks like those who said the Obama Administration would strike while the iron is hot may have been correct, and the Administration may be doing it in a way that does not require them to even get a vote in Congress. In this morning's edition of the Shooting Wire, Jim Shepherd writes that Canadian officials have it on "good authority" our State Department may be on the verge of cutting off all imports of certain calibers of ammunition.
Ammos listed for this rumored ban include the .50BMG, 7.62x39mm Soviet, 7.62x51mm NATO, .308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington. Additionally, we're hearing that an expansion of this proposed ban might be broadened to include the 6.8mm SPC, 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP- among others.”
Most astounding of all of these events is that the vast majority of Americans still look upon their new President Obama as being different from their former President Bush, but as each day goes by the evidence clearly shows he is nothing more than the figurehead put into place to enact the final ENDGAME leading to the final destruction of the United States.
From Bush’s War on Terror which he is continuing, to Bush’s tax cuts to the wealthy elite he is continuing, to his backing of Bush’s torture policies, to his attempts to kill the case against seeking to find the millions of lost Bush emails, to his attempts to maintain Bush’s secrecy on spying and torture of US citizens, and so much more, President Obama is marching in virtual lockstep with his predecessor virtually ignored by the masses of Americans soon to be destroyed by what they refuse to see and defend themselves against.
To what is going to become of these once great American people we need look no further than the words of the British champion of social justice George Orwell, who in his prophetic work “1984” stated:
“The ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering—a world of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines and terrifying weapons—a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting—three hundred million people all with the same face.”
How terrifying it is for those Americans not having the ‘same face’ as their mindless fellow citizens we know all too well as we have seen them before in the gulags of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, the Killing Fields of Cambodia and now soon to be….in the United States.
© February 24, 2009 EU and US all rights reserved
Update: 25 February 2009: Iowa Guard cancels urban warfare exercise over gun-rights advocates are concerns
[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.] .
Translation to Spanish by: Sister Maru Barraza, Mazatlán, Mexico
________________________________________________
http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/auto/newsdesk/20090119232711ymnews.html
What has Raytheon, the USA company that made radar equipment for yachts, got in common with sci-fi riot control?
Two years ago the UK Ministry of Defence's Strategic Trends depicted an alarming futuristic scenario in which middle-class radicals could engage in revolutionary activity with violent 'flashmobs', threatening the authorities with lawless disorder.
There are growing signs that these predictions may turn true. Remember the Greek riots following the police shooting of a teenager? Recently, police confronted demonstrators protesting deteriorating economic conditions and political corruption in Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria. There have been smaller demonstrations in Spain, Turkey, Denmark and Italy.
'These disturbances are another consequence of the bursting of the speculative capitalist bubble and the illusion of unlimited prosperity that once sustained it,' says journalist Matthew Carr.
The US military sees the modern city as the battleground of the 21st century. Now it's reported that the Pentagon is experimenting with an array of weapons, including the Active Denial System (ADS), a microwave 'ray gun' designed by Raytheon, which directs unbearable heat on the skin from a 2km distance and is specifically designed for crowd dispersal.
Other ongoing projects include acoustic devices and Pulsed Energy Projectiles (PEPs) which hurl plasma at crowds, causing 'pain and temporary paralysis'.
These weapons were originally intended for the urban battlegrounds of the Third World. 'But if Barack Obama fails to reactivate the ailing US economy, they may well find themselves deployed in the United States,' writes Carr. 'The news from Wall Street that US financiers awarded themselves a staggering $18.4bn in bonuses in 2008 hardly helps the new president's cause.'
Next time your switch on your Raytheon radar, watch out!
February 24 2009
US Orders Project ENDGAME To Begin, 775,000 Americans Targeted For Arrest
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers (Traducción al Español abajo)
A stunning Russian Foreign Ministry report is stating today that the President Obama has secretly ordered the ‘immediate’ opening of America’s vast gulag of concentration camps, built since 2001 and estimated able to hold a further 1 million of their citizens, which is aside from the 2.3 million currently imprisoned in what has become the World’s largest Prison Nation in all of history, in what they are calling Project ENDGAME.
These reports say that President Obama’s administration is being driven by the ‘outright fear’ over what they say will be an ‘explosion’ of massive social upheaval this coming summer due to their Nations economic collapse which has nearly totally destroyed their ability to maintain their food stocks as tens of thousands of US farmers have had to resort to the mass slaughter of their bird flocks, swine and cattle herds they are unable to feed due to their not being able to gain access to their much needed Farm Operating Loans they survive on until their crops come in and their flocks and herds are ready for market.
The American farmers being cut off from these operating loans is eerily reminiscent of the 1930’s Great Depression which likewise saw the total collapse of the United States being able to feed itself and which Russian historian Boris Borisov has estimated killed over 10 million Americans.
It is important to note that Dr. Borisov’s seminal research on the massive numbers of Americans killed during their Great Depression is still banned from being published in the United States though the figures supporting his claims come from the US’s own government compiled statistics, and as we can read as reported by the Russia Today News Service:
“As I was doing comparative research of the American Great Depression in the 1930s, and the Great Depression of the 1990s in Russia, I grew interested in the social dimension of the tragedy. It was logical that I looked up official American documents and found out that the discrepancies were so obvious that any independent researcher would not but have doubt about the official U.S. statistic data. All appears to be rather interesting. I will come to that later.
The U.S. Congress added fuel to the fire by adopting resolutions nearly every year blaming the Soviet government for alleged staged famine in the 1930s in Ukraine. The first resolution came in 1988, 50 years after the events described. The current members of Congress wonder about the following, and I quote, “people in the government were aware of what was going on, but did not do anything to help the starving”.
.......
To the vast gulag of new concentration camps built for those American citizens targeted by their government of ‘immediate’ arrest we can further read as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle News Service:
“Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of “an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.”
“Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
___________________
tommy:
DEATH CAMPS...WORK TO DEATH CAMPS....NAZI AMERICAN HOLACAUSTIC FUTURE under Barack "Audacity of Hope" OBAMA?
____________________
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
___________________
tommy:
ERIC HOLDER AND OBAMA have done nothing....to get THE WAR COMMISSIONS ACT thrown out on Constitutional grounds?
This is an ENABLING LAW straight out of Hitler's playbook?
Not one punk cocksucking idiot Democrat has ever thought about PUTTING THE WAR COMMISSIONS ACT ON TRIAL AT THE US SUPREME COURT?
______________________
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.”
Reports from the United States are also reporting that for the first time since their Civil War, US Troops are being trained to take over whole villages and towns to capture and arrest anyone they deem a threat, and as we can read of one such US Military Unit in Iowa:
“The Carroll National Guard unit will train on urban military operations by holding a four-day exercise at Arcadia. The purpose of the April 2-5 drill will be to gather intelligence, then search for and apprehend a suspected weapons dealer, according to Sgt. Mike Kots, readiness NCO for Alpha Company.
Citizens, law enforcement, media and other supporters will participate.
Troops will spend Thursday, April 2, staging at a forward operations base at Carroll. The next day company leaders will conduct reconnaissance and begin patrolling the streets of Arcadia to identify possible locations of the weapons dealer.
The primary phase will be done Saturday, April 4, when convoys will be deployed from Carroll to Arcadia. Pictures of the arms dealer will be shown in Arcadia, and soldiers will go door to door asking if residents have seen the suspect.
Soldiers will knock only at households that have agreed to participate in the drill, Kots noted.
“Once credible intelligence has been gathered," said Kots, "portions of the town will be road-blocked and more in-depth searches of homes and vehicles will be conducted in accordance with the residents' wishes.
“One of the techniques we use in today's political environment is cordon and knock," Kots explained. "We ask for the head of the household, get permission to search, then have them open doors and cupboards. The homeowner maintains control. We peer over their shoulder, and the soldier uses the homeowner's body language and position to protect him."
During this phase of the operation, troops will interact with residents and media while implementing crowd-control measures and possibly treating and evacuating injured persons. The unit will use a Blackhawk helicopter for overhead command and control, and to simulate medevacs. The drill will culminate in the apprehension of the suspected arms dealer.”
The sheer Orwellian aspect of US Military Officials and US Propaganda Media Organs using their own citizens to assist in the apprehension of their family, friends and neighbors labeled as ‘enemies of the state’ are too chilling to comprehend, but become downright frightening when coupled with the news that the US Government is now moving to cut off access to all of their citizens to the ammunition they would need to defend themselves against these fascist barbarians.
Virtually unknown to the masses of gun owning Americans is that their fears of having their government confiscate their guns was never the greatest one to have, but to the taking away all of these peoples access to the ammunition needed for their guns is what the ‘master plan’ for subjugating them has always been, and as we can read:
“It looks like those who said the Obama Administration would strike while the iron is hot may have been correct, and the Administration may be doing it in a way that does not require them to even get a vote in Congress. In this morning's edition of the Shooting Wire, Jim Shepherd writes that Canadian officials have it on "good authority" our State Department may be on the verge of cutting off all imports of certain calibers of ammunition.
Ammos listed for this rumored ban include the .50BMG, 7.62x39mm Soviet, 7.62x51mm NATO, .308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington. Additionally, we're hearing that an expansion of this proposed ban might be broadened to include the 6.8mm SPC, 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP- among others.”
Most astounding of all of these events is that the vast majority of Americans still look upon their new President Obama as being different from their former President Bush, but as each day goes by the evidence clearly shows he is nothing more than the figurehead put into place to enact the final ENDGAME leading to the final destruction of the United States.
From Bush’s War on Terror which he is continuing, to Bush’s tax cuts to the wealthy elite he is continuing, to his backing of Bush’s torture policies, to his attempts to kill the case against seeking to find the millions of lost Bush emails, to his attempts to maintain Bush’s secrecy on spying and torture of US citizens, and so much more, President Obama is marching in virtual lockstep with his predecessor virtually ignored by the masses of Americans soon to be destroyed by what they refuse to see and defend themselves against.
To what is going to become of these once great American people we need look no further than the words of the British champion of social justice George Orwell, who in his prophetic work “1984” stated:
“The ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering—a world of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines and terrifying weapons—a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting—three hundred million people all with the same face.”
How terrifying it is for those Americans not having the ‘same face’ as their mindless fellow citizens we know all too well as we have seen them before in the gulags of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, the Killing Fields of Cambodia and now soon to be….in the United States.
© February 24, 2009 EU and US all rights reserved
Update: 25 February 2009: Iowa Guard cancels urban warfare exercise over gun-rights advocates are concerns
[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.] .
Translation to Spanish by: Sister Maru Barraza, Mazatlán, Mexico
________________________________________________
http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/auto/newsdesk/20090119232711ymnews.html
What has Raytheon, the USA company that made radar equipment for yachts, got in common with sci-fi riot control?
Two years ago the UK Ministry of Defence's Strategic Trends depicted an alarming futuristic scenario in which middle-class radicals could engage in revolutionary activity with violent 'flashmobs', threatening the authorities with lawless disorder.
There are growing signs that these predictions may turn true. Remember the Greek riots following the police shooting of a teenager? Recently, police confronted demonstrators protesting deteriorating economic conditions and political corruption in Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria. There have been smaller demonstrations in Spain, Turkey, Denmark and Italy.
'These disturbances are another consequence of the bursting of the speculative capitalist bubble and the illusion of unlimited prosperity that once sustained it,' says journalist Matthew Carr.
The US military sees the modern city as the battleground of the 21st century. Now it's reported that the Pentagon is experimenting with an array of weapons, including the Active Denial System (ADS), a microwave 'ray gun' designed by Raytheon, which directs unbearable heat on the skin from a 2km distance and is specifically designed for crowd dispersal.
Other ongoing projects include acoustic devices and Pulsed Energy Projectiles (PEPs) which hurl plasma at crowds, causing 'pain and temporary paralysis'.
These weapons were originally intended for the urban battlegrounds of the Third World. 'But if Barack Obama fails to reactivate the ailing US economy, they may well find themselves deployed in the United States,' writes Carr. 'The news from Wall Street that US financiers awarded themselves a staggering $18.4bn in bonuses in 2008 hardly helps the new president's cause.'
Next time your switch on your Raytheon radar, watch out!
OBAMA--HOLDER: same power control group...NO CHANGE...NO AUDACITY OF HOPE or OVERSIGHT of POWER CONTROL GROUP MAFIA
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Obama Admin Backs Bushies On Missing Emails
By Zachary Roth - February 23, 2009, 5:27PM
Change we can believe in? Maybe not so much.
The Obama administration is siding with the Bush administration in trying to kill a lawsuit brought by watchdog groups that seeks to gain access to Bush White House emails, reports the Associated Press.
At issue are emails from key periods of the Bush years, including the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak.
In response to the suit brought by two groups, CREW and the National Security Archive, the Bush White House recently said that it had found 14 million of the e-mails and had taken steps to archive others. But the plaintiffs called those steps inadequate.
Now the Obama Justice Department is seeking to have the suit dismissed, just as the Bush DOJ did.
"The new administration seems no more eager than the last" to deal with the issue, Anne Weismann of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told the Associated Press.
The AP adds:
Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, noted that President Barack Obama on his first full day in office called for greater transparency in government.
The Justice Department "apparently never got the message" from Obama, Blanton said.
Sounds about right.
________________________________
TOMMY:
In my opinion from my vantage point...I think OBAMA would like to do his job "free of the obvious extortionate leverage" used to "TELL OBAMA WHO HIS CABINET PICKS WOULD BE" (Clinton?...Rahmbo?...Gates?).
The POWER CONTROL GROUP (aka The rightwing Secret Team moving all the cocaine, heroin, Mossad ecstasy into our country...the guys who BRAINSTROKED SOUTH DAKOTA US SENATOR TIM JOHNSON and Sen Ted Kennedy, Leroy Rogers, Jon Van Patten, so many others) has not "lost an election since World War II".
Obama is either an MK ULTRA patsy...or easily extorted on his birth certificate held by the Hawaiin governor (Remember three assaults on Obama's Presidency and citizenship was before the US Supreme Court?).
Obama does not have a clue what I can do for him as far as EXTORTING THE EXTORTIONISTS who have coopted his presidency.
Mr Obama...you need to talk to me.
___________________________________________________
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Quelle Surprise: Rove A No-Show, Again, For US Attorneys Testimony
By Zachary Roth - February 23, 2009, 1:47PM
So today was the day that Karl Rove was supposed to appear before the House Judiciary committee to testify about the US Attorney firings. And of course, Rove didn't show.
That wasn't a surprise. After getting the deadline pushed back, Rove had already publicly indicated he didn't plan on being there, citing President Bush's claim of executive privilege. Rove's lawyer had then asked for a second postponement, a request that Judiciary chair John Conyers had declined to grant.
It's a bit unclear where things go now. The next key date is March 4th -- the new deadline for the Obama administration to weigh in on the Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten case, in which President Bush also asserted executive privilege. The new administration's stance on that case could well also determine how a judge would rule on the Rove case, should the issue go to court.
And given Rove's continuing failure to cooperate, it looks like that's where we're heading.
_______________________________________
tommy:
Rove did not show because he has no fear of violating the rule of law...like all GOP Shadow Government Control Group Mafia scum.
That is a problem.
HOLDER will do nothing on this.
Time for Leahy and CONYERS to do what I tell them to do: TAKE TESTIMONY FROM WITNESSES WHO ACTUALLY WANT TO TESTIFY to lay a foundation that leads to a better clearier determination of the answer to the question, "...WHAT ARE THESE LYING MOTHERFUCKERS TRYING TO COVER UP?"
________________________________________________
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/for_stanford_a_long_trail_of_run-ins_with_authorit.php
For Stanford, A Long Trail Of Run-Ins With Authorities
By Zachary Roth - February 23, 2009, 12:13PM
Relatively few Americans had heard of Allen Stanford until the last week or so. But it turns out that, over the last decade, the Texas billionaire had attracted the scrutiny of a range of government authorities, and been the subject of several civil suits -- so much so that it's hard to believe it took until last week for him to be formally charged.
Let's recap what we know about the various inquiries, investigations, and lawsuits focused on Stanford's sprawling financial empire over the last decade:
Circa 1998
- Stanford writes in a letter to the US ambassador to Antigua that he has been investigated by numerous agencies over the years, and none had found evidence of wrongdoing.
1999
- After Stanford finds that a former Mexican drug lord had used his bank to hide or launder money, he voluntarily makes out a cashier's check worth $3.1 million, and gives it to the Drug Enforcement Agency.
- The Treasury Department places Antigua -- where Stanford's business is based, and with whose government he is cozy -- on its money-laundering watch list.
Circa 1999
- Texas securities regulators find evidence of potential money laundering involving Stanford. They refer it to the FBI and the SEC, because it involves offshore banks. Texas securities commissioner Denise Voigt Crawford later tells the state legislative committee: "Why it took 10 years for the feds to move on it, I cannot answer." She added: "We worked with the FBI and the SEC and basically gave them the case. We told them what we'd seen and they were going to run with it."
2005
- A lawsuit filed in Florida accuses Stanford of aiding a Ponzi scheme.
2006
- The SEC's Fort Worth office opens an investigation into Stanford's business, but is asked by another agency to "stand down," and complies. (Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who chairs the House Domestic Policy subcommittee, asked late last week that the agency turn over documents related to that sequence of events.)
2006
- A second Florida lawsuit, this one filed by a former employee, accused Stanford of being involved in a Ponzi scheme.
2007
- Two former employees sue Stanford, alleging fraud.
- The SEC finds, during a routine exam, that Stanford's Houston-based broker-dealer operation is violating net capital requirements. The firm pays a $20,000 fine.
- Stanford Financial pays a $10,000 fine to FINRA in response to allegations that it gave out "misleading, unfair and unbalanced information" about its certificates of deposit.
2008
- Stanford Financial pays a $30,000 fine to FINRA in response to allegations that it didn't adequately disclose in its research reports its method for valuing certain securities, among other information.
- FBI opens an investigation into whether Stanford laundered drug money for Mexico's violent Gulf Cartel. Mexican authorities detained one of Stanford's private planes after officials found checks inside believed to be connected to the cartel. (The DEA also at some point probed Stanford for laundering drug money.)
- That inquiry into Stanford by the SEC's Fort Worth office is reopened, in the wake of widespread criticism of the agency for failing to catch Bernard Madoff's alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme, and for de-emphasizing enforcement in recent years.
2009
- SEC files charges against Stanford, alleging "massive ongoing fraud."
As we reported last week, there's strong reason to believe that the SEC should have pushed harder on Stanford sooner. The long history of inquiries that failed to uncover Stanford's alleged $8 billion fraud only strengthens that notion
___________________________________
TOMMY:
Any criticism of MUELLER'S FBI has to be understood in light of the fact that...CORRUPTION AT DOJ HQ AND WHITE HOUSE IN LAST FIFTY YEARS...has always made sure that the GOP POWER CONTROL GROUP has access to BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN UNTAXED DRUG MONEY.
YOU cannot understand the GOP without analyzing the drug money.
You cannot understand America...unless you factor in DRUG MONEY CORRUPTION IN DC.
Go to MADCOWMORNING NEWS to see Hopsicker's archives...TO UNDERSTAND THE LINKS BETWEEN THE DRUG GOP MAFIA CORRUPTION and 9/11
Obama Admin Backs Bushies On Missing Emails
By Zachary Roth - February 23, 2009, 5:27PM
Change we can believe in? Maybe not so much.
The Obama administration is siding with the Bush administration in trying to kill a lawsuit brought by watchdog groups that seeks to gain access to Bush White House emails, reports the Associated Press.
At issue are emails from key periods of the Bush years, including the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak.
In response to the suit brought by two groups, CREW and the National Security Archive, the Bush White House recently said that it had found 14 million of the e-mails and had taken steps to archive others. But the plaintiffs called those steps inadequate.
Now the Obama Justice Department is seeking to have the suit dismissed, just as the Bush DOJ did.
"The new administration seems no more eager than the last" to deal with the issue, Anne Weismann of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told the Associated Press.
The AP adds:
Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, noted that President Barack Obama on his first full day in office called for greater transparency in government.
The Justice Department "apparently never got the message" from Obama, Blanton said.
Sounds about right.
________________________________
TOMMY:
In my opinion from my vantage point...I think OBAMA would like to do his job "free of the obvious extortionate leverage" used to "TELL OBAMA WHO HIS CABINET PICKS WOULD BE" (Clinton?...Rahmbo?...Gates?).
The POWER CONTROL GROUP (aka The rightwing Secret Team moving all the cocaine, heroin, Mossad ecstasy into our country...the guys who BRAINSTROKED SOUTH DAKOTA US SENATOR TIM JOHNSON and Sen Ted Kennedy, Leroy Rogers, Jon Van Patten, so many others) has not "lost an election since World War II".
Obama is either an MK ULTRA patsy...or easily extorted on his birth certificate held by the Hawaiin governor (Remember three assaults on Obama's Presidency and citizenship was before the US Supreme Court?).
Obama does not have a clue what I can do for him as far as EXTORTING THE EXTORTIONISTS who have coopted his presidency.
Mr Obama...you need to talk to me.
___________________________________________________
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Quelle Surprise: Rove A No-Show, Again, For US Attorneys Testimony
By Zachary Roth - February 23, 2009, 1:47PM
So today was the day that Karl Rove was supposed to appear before the House Judiciary committee to testify about the US Attorney firings. And of course, Rove didn't show.
That wasn't a surprise. After getting the deadline pushed back, Rove had already publicly indicated he didn't plan on being there, citing President Bush's claim of executive privilege. Rove's lawyer had then asked for a second postponement, a request that Judiciary chair John Conyers had declined to grant.
It's a bit unclear where things go now. The next key date is March 4th -- the new deadline for the Obama administration to weigh in on the Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten case, in which President Bush also asserted executive privilege. The new administration's stance on that case could well also determine how a judge would rule on the Rove case, should the issue go to court.
And given Rove's continuing failure to cooperate, it looks like that's where we're heading.
_______________________________________
tommy:
Rove did not show because he has no fear of violating the rule of law...like all GOP Shadow Government Control Group Mafia scum.
That is a problem.
HOLDER will do nothing on this.
Time for Leahy and CONYERS to do what I tell them to do: TAKE TESTIMONY FROM WITNESSES WHO ACTUALLY WANT TO TESTIFY to lay a foundation that leads to a better clearier determination of the answer to the question, "...WHAT ARE THESE LYING MOTHERFUCKERS TRYING TO COVER UP?"
________________________________________________
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/for_stanford_a_long_trail_of_run-ins_with_authorit.php
For Stanford, A Long Trail Of Run-Ins With Authorities
By Zachary Roth - February 23, 2009, 12:13PM
Relatively few Americans had heard of Allen Stanford until the last week or so. But it turns out that, over the last decade, the Texas billionaire had attracted the scrutiny of a range of government authorities, and been the subject of several civil suits -- so much so that it's hard to believe it took until last week for him to be formally charged.
Let's recap what we know about the various inquiries, investigations, and lawsuits focused on Stanford's sprawling financial empire over the last decade:
Circa 1998
- Stanford writes in a letter to the US ambassador to Antigua that he has been investigated by numerous agencies over the years, and none had found evidence of wrongdoing.
1999
- After Stanford finds that a former Mexican drug lord had used his bank to hide or launder money, he voluntarily makes out a cashier's check worth $3.1 million, and gives it to the Drug Enforcement Agency.
- The Treasury Department places Antigua -- where Stanford's business is based, and with whose government he is cozy -- on its money-laundering watch list.
Circa 1999
- Texas securities regulators find evidence of potential money laundering involving Stanford. They refer it to the FBI and the SEC, because it involves offshore banks. Texas securities commissioner Denise Voigt Crawford later tells the state legislative committee: "Why it took 10 years for the feds to move on it, I cannot answer." She added: "We worked with the FBI and the SEC and basically gave them the case. We told them what we'd seen and they were going to run with it."
2005
- A lawsuit filed in Florida accuses Stanford of aiding a Ponzi scheme.
2006
- The SEC's Fort Worth office opens an investigation into Stanford's business, but is asked by another agency to "stand down," and complies. (Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who chairs the House Domestic Policy subcommittee, asked late last week that the agency turn over documents related to that sequence of events.)
2006
- A second Florida lawsuit, this one filed by a former employee, accused Stanford of being involved in a Ponzi scheme.
2007
- Two former employees sue Stanford, alleging fraud.
- The SEC finds, during a routine exam, that Stanford's Houston-based broker-dealer operation is violating net capital requirements. The firm pays a $20,000 fine.
- Stanford Financial pays a $10,000 fine to FINRA in response to allegations that it gave out "misleading, unfair and unbalanced information" about its certificates of deposit.
2008
- Stanford Financial pays a $30,000 fine to FINRA in response to allegations that it didn't adequately disclose in its research reports its method for valuing certain securities, among other information.
- FBI opens an investigation into whether Stanford laundered drug money for Mexico's violent Gulf Cartel. Mexican authorities detained one of Stanford's private planes after officials found checks inside believed to be connected to the cartel. (The DEA also at some point probed Stanford for laundering drug money.)
- That inquiry into Stanford by the SEC's Fort Worth office is reopened, in the wake of widespread criticism of the agency for failing to catch Bernard Madoff's alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme, and for de-emphasizing enforcement in recent years.
2009
- SEC files charges against Stanford, alleging "massive ongoing fraud."
As we reported last week, there's strong reason to believe that the SEC should have pushed harder on Stanford sooner. The long history of inquiries that failed to uncover Stanford's alleged $8 billion fraud only strengthens that notion
___________________________________
TOMMY:
Any criticism of MUELLER'S FBI has to be understood in light of the fact that...CORRUPTION AT DOJ HQ AND WHITE HOUSE IN LAST FIFTY YEARS...has always made sure that the GOP POWER CONTROL GROUP has access to BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN UNTAXED DRUG MONEY.
YOU cannot understand the GOP without analyzing the drug money.
You cannot understand America...unless you factor in DRUG MONEY CORRUPTION IN DC.
Go to MADCOWMORNING NEWS to see Hopsicker's archives...TO UNDERSTAND THE LINKS BETWEEN THE DRUG GOP MAFIA CORRUPTION and 9/11
Friday, February 20, 2009
Who says you need to go to law school?
http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/index.html
A News of the Weird Classic (September 2003)
"Fool for a Client" 3; Prosecutors 0:
Between June and August 2003, high school dropout Jonathan Harris, 34, acted as his own lawyer in three Philadelphia felony cases and won them all, including a murder trial that could have sent him to death row.
He had two more potential trials upcoming and taunted the prosecutor about taking him on again. (The prosecutor blamed the murder acquittal on unreliable and no-show witnesses.) [Newsday-AP, 8-18-03]
____________________________________________________________
http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/nw090208.html
Can't Possibly Be True
An Oregon district attorney's office set out two years ago to prosecute David Simmons for having sex the year before with his girlfriend, then 14, while he was 17.
A grand jury in Jefferson County refused to indict Simmons, but the prosecutor acted exactly like the indictment had gone through, and no one, even Simmons, noticed the mistake.
Only when Simmons agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a 30-day sentence in October 2006 did the news finally reach the foreman of the grand jury that had "no-billed" Simmons, and the foreman's complaint caused the judge to dismiss the conviction.
However, in December 2008, prosecutors in neighboring Lane County charged Simmons anew for that 2005 tryst, claiming that "double jeopardy" does not apply because the Jefferson County case never legally happened (in that Simmons was never really indicted). [Register-Guard (Eugene), 12-17-08]
A News of the Weird Classic (September 2003)
"Fool for a Client" 3; Prosecutors 0:
Between June and August 2003, high school dropout Jonathan Harris, 34, acted as his own lawyer in three Philadelphia felony cases and won them all, including a murder trial that could have sent him to death row.
He had two more potential trials upcoming and taunted the prosecutor about taking him on again. (The prosecutor blamed the murder acquittal on unreliable and no-show witnesses.) [Newsday-AP, 8-18-03]
____________________________________________________________
http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/nw090208.html
Can't Possibly Be True
An Oregon district attorney's office set out two years ago to prosecute David Simmons for having sex the year before with his girlfriend, then 14, while he was 17.
A grand jury in Jefferson County refused to indict Simmons, but the prosecutor acted exactly like the indictment had gone through, and no one, even Simmons, noticed the mistake.
Only when Simmons agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a 30-day sentence in October 2006 did the news finally reach the foreman of the grand jury that had "no-billed" Simmons, and the foreman's complaint caused the judge to dismiss the conviction.
However, in December 2008, prosecutors in neighboring Lane County charged Simmons anew for that 2005 tryst, claiming that "double jeopardy" does not apply because the Jefferson County case never legally happened (in that Simmons was never really indicted). [Register-Guard (Eugene), 12-17-08]
Wayne Madsen connects MADDOFF---TEXAS OIL--BONY--RUSSIAN ISAELI MAFIA--SWISS UBS SEIZURE of IRS scofflaw's ill gotten money
Note: from WAYNEMADSENREPORT....posted at ATHEONEWS @ http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/02/whos-behind-madoff.html
Who’s behind Madoff?
By Wayne Madsen
Online Journal Contributing Writer
(WMR) -- As the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it had cut a deal with $50 billion Ponzi scammer Bernard Madoff whereby Madoff will neither admit nor deny fraud claims against him in a suit brought by the SEC. In return Madoff has agreed to pay civil fines and penalties levied by the SEC. The agreement has no bearing on Madoff’s criminal trial.
WMR has learned that in addition to 20 million documents stored by Madoff in a warehouse in Queens that were stored without any indexing system and merely placed in boxes and strewn around the floor are millions of additional documents that were stored by Madoff in a Brooklyn warehouse that was partially flooded. A number of the Madoff documents there were destroyed by water damage.
WMR has also learned that a key element in Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was Madoff Energy LLC, formed as a Delaware corporation in February 2007. Other Madoff firms in the energy arena were Madoff Energy Holdings LLC, Madoff Energy III LLC, and Madoff Energy IV LLC. There are links between these now-defunct Madoff energy entities and Texas oil and natural gas industry interests, some close to the Bushes and Dick Cheney.
WMR has also learned that the kid glove treatment given by federal authorities to Madoff, including allowing him to remain in his Upper East Side luxury town home, is because Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was part of a much larger operation, one involving top officials of both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, as well as the notorious Russian-Israeli Mafia.
One of the investors in Madoff’s scam was, according to the published list of Madoff “victims,” was the Bank of New York (BONY) and a contrivance called the “Alternate Investment Service.” BONY was the subject of a previous detailed WMR report on the activities of the Russian-Israeli mob:
“Forest Hills has been identified by the FBI as a major center for both the Russian-Israeli Mafia and Mossad and it is a place where the two interests often cooperate. In 2002, OPERATION SPIDERWEB, a joint FBI-EUROPOL operation, resulted in the arrest of 20 Russian-Israeli dual citizens on charges of money laundering.
The laundering primarily involved the Bank of New York (BONY), the Russian bank Menatep, and an ‘Internet bank’ called the European Union Bank. More importantly, the money-laundering network also included Benex, a firm connected to Bill Clinton-pardoned Mossad figure Marc Rich, who still resides primarily in Switzerland. . . .
Benex’s office was located on Queens Boulevard in Forest Hills in the same building where Grigori Loutchansky headquartered two of his companies. Loutchansky is a Latvian-born Israeli who laundered billions through his Vienna-based NORDEX firm. National Security Agency (NSA) signals intercepts have reportedly yielded intelligence on Loutchansky’s role in the smuggling of nuclear materials. Loutchansky also was closely linked to Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign through New York real estate magnate and Democratic donor Sam Dombs. . . .
Forest Hills was also the hometown of international diamond dealer Yehuda Abraham, convicted in a plot to smuggle surface-to-air missile launchers from Russia into the United States, a mere four months after 9/11, and launder the proceeds from the deal through Malaysia. The network was discovered to have links with the Viktor Bout weapons smuggling network and money laundering facilities linked to ‘Al Qaeda’ Southeast Asia affiliate Jemaah Islamiyah. Abraham, an Afghan Jew, was linked not only to Mossad but to the Saudi Royal Family.”
Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, was the Clinton administration’s deputy attorney general who approved the eleventh hour Clinton pardon for Rich.
Another Madoff investor was Mellon Financial Services.
On July 8, 2008, WMR reported:
“A February 27, 2008, truck theft of backup data tapes from Bank of New York Mellon Corporation’s Jersey City Shareholder Services unit has the hallmarks of an organized crime heist. Shareholders of the Walt Disney Company, John Hancock Financial Services (a division of Manulife Financial Corporation), People’s United Bank of Connecticut, and the Bank of New York were informed that their stock sale transactions may have been compromised.”
Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, is a former chairman of the Board of the Walt Disney Company.
WMR has learned from a U.S. intelligence source in the Middle East that much of the $50 billion scammed by Madoff is now in Israeli banks and other financial contrivances established to secretly launder the ill-gotten loot. The Madoff Ponzi scheme may also be linked to the revelations by former Liechtenstein LGT bank employee Heinrich Kieber of secret off-shore accounts held by tax-evading politicians and businessmen in the United States and other countries, as well as the Clearstream entity in Luxembourg that involved allegations of a slush fund used to finance the political ambitions of France’s neocon president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and other right-wing politicians.
Harry Markopolos, a former investment manager-turned-investigator, recently told the U. S. House Financial Services Subcommittee that the SEC failed to take action against Madoff when Markopolos repeatedly warned the regulatory agency of the Ponzi scheme activities of Madoff, a former chairman of NASDAQ. The hearing at which Markopolos testified was chaired by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), whose 5th congressional district adjoins the 9th congressional district of Forest Hills and Rego Park, a nexus for Russian-Israeli mob activity in the New York City area.
On February 9, the SEC announced that Linda Thomsen, the agency’s top enforcement official, was resigning to “pursue opportunities in the private sector.”
Previously published in the Wayne Madsen Report.
Copyright © 2008 WayneMadenReport.com
Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and nationally-distributed columnist. He is the editor and publisher of the Wayne Madsen Report (subscription required).
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4385.shtml
Who’s behind Madoff?
By Wayne Madsen
Online Journal Contributing Writer
(WMR) -- As the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it had cut a deal with $50 billion Ponzi scammer Bernard Madoff whereby Madoff will neither admit nor deny fraud claims against him in a suit brought by the SEC. In return Madoff has agreed to pay civil fines and penalties levied by the SEC. The agreement has no bearing on Madoff’s criminal trial.
WMR has learned that in addition to 20 million documents stored by Madoff in a warehouse in Queens that were stored without any indexing system and merely placed in boxes and strewn around the floor are millions of additional documents that were stored by Madoff in a Brooklyn warehouse that was partially flooded. A number of the Madoff documents there were destroyed by water damage.
WMR has also learned that a key element in Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was Madoff Energy LLC, formed as a Delaware corporation in February 2007. Other Madoff firms in the energy arena were Madoff Energy Holdings LLC, Madoff Energy III LLC, and Madoff Energy IV LLC. There are links between these now-defunct Madoff energy entities and Texas oil and natural gas industry interests, some close to the Bushes and Dick Cheney.
WMR has also learned that the kid glove treatment given by federal authorities to Madoff, including allowing him to remain in his Upper East Side luxury town home, is because Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was part of a much larger operation, one involving top officials of both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, as well as the notorious Russian-Israeli Mafia.
One of the investors in Madoff’s scam was, according to the published list of Madoff “victims,” was the Bank of New York (BONY) and a contrivance called the “Alternate Investment Service.” BONY was the subject of a previous detailed WMR report on the activities of the Russian-Israeli mob:
“Forest Hills has been identified by the FBI as a major center for both the Russian-Israeli Mafia and Mossad and it is a place where the two interests often cooperate. In 2002, OPERATION SPIDERWEB, a joint FBI-EUROPOL operation, resulted in the arrest of 20 Russian-Israeli dual citizens on charges of money laundering.
The laundering primarily involved the Bank of New York (BONY), the Russian bank Menatep, and an ‘Internet bank’ called the European Union Bank. More importantly, the money-laundering network also included Benex, a firm connected to Bill Clinton-pardoned Mossad figure Marc Rich, who still resides primarily in Switzerland. . . .
Benex’s office was located on Queens Boulevard in Forest Hills in the same building where Grigori Loutchansky headquartered two of his companies. Loutchansky is a Latvian-born Israeli who laundered billions through his Vienna-based NORDEX firm. National Security Agency (NSA) signals intercepts have reportedly yielded intelligence on Loutchansky’s role in the smuggling of nuclear materials. Loutchansky also was closely linked to Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign through New York real estate magnate and Democratic donor Sam Dombs. . . .
Forest Hills was also the hometown of international diamond dealer Yehuda Abraham, convicted in a plot to smuggle surface-to-air missile launchers from Russia into the United States, a mere four months after 9/11, and launder the proceeds from the deal through Malaysia. The network was discovered to have links with the Viktor Bout weapons smuggling network and money laundering facilities linked to ‘Al Qaeda’ Southeast Asia affiliate Jemaah Islamiyah. Abraham, an Afghan Jew, was linked not only to Mossad but to the Saudi Royal Family.”
Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, was the Clinton administration’s deputy attorney general who approved the eleventh hour Clinton pardon for Rich.
Another Madoff investor was Mellon Financial Services.
On July 8, 2008, WMR reported:
“A February 27, 2008, truck theft of backup data tapes from Bank of New York Mellon Corporation’s Jersey City Shareholder Services unit has the hallmarks of an organized crime heist. Shareholders of the Walt Disney Company, John Hancock Financial Services (a division of Manulife Financial Corporation), People’s United Bank of Connecticut, and the Bank of New York were informed that their stock sale transactions may have been compromised.”
Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, is a former chairman of the Board of the Walt Disney Company.
WMR has learned from a U.S. intelligence source in the Middle East that much of the $50 billion scammed by Madoff is now in Israeli banks and other financial contrivances established to secretly launder the ill-gotten loot. The Madoff Ponzi scheme may also be linked to the revelations by former Liechtenstein LGT bank employee Heinrich Kieber of secret off-shore accounts held by tax-evading politicians and businessmen in the United States and other countries, as well as the Clearstream entity in Luxembourg that involved allegations of a slush fund used to finance the political ambitions of France’s neocon president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and other right-wing politicians.
Harry Markopolos, a former investment manager-turned-investigator, recently told the U. S. House Financial Services Subcommittee that the SEC failed to take action against Madoff when Markopolos repeatedly warned the regulatory agency of the Ponzi scheme activities of Madoff, a former chairman of NASDAQ. The hearing at which Markopolos testified was chaired by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), whose 5th congressional district adjoins the 9th congressional district of Forest Hills and Rego Park, a nexus for Russian-Israeli mob activity in the New York City area.
On February 9, the SEC announced that Linda Thomsen, the agency’s top enforcement official, was resigning to “pursue opportunities in the private sector.”
Previously published in the Wayne Madsen Report.
Copyright © 2008 WayneMadenReport.com
Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and nationally-distributed columnist. He is the editor and publisher of the Wayne Madsen Report (subscription required).
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4385.shtml
Thursday, February 19, 2009
STANFORD investigated by FBI for DRUG MONEY LAUNDERING?....hmm...if a politician takes drug money, is he also...GUILTY?
http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSN1846588720090219
Stanford under federal drug investigation - ABC-TV
Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:29pm EST
WASHINGTON, Feb 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and others have been investigating whether Texas billionaire Allen Stanford was involved in laundering drug money for Mexico Gulf cartel, ABC News reported on Wednesday, citing federal authorities.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday charged Stanford and two executives of Stanford Group Co with an $8 billion fraud.
Mexican authorities detained one of Stanford's private planes as part of the investigation, which has been ongoing since last year, ABC reported citing unnamed officials.
Officials said checks found inside the plane were believed to be connected to the Gulf cartel, reputed to be Mexico's most violent gang, ABC reported.
ABC cited authorities as saying that Stanford could potentially face criminal charges of money laundering and bribery of foreign officials.
Authorities said the SEC's action against Stanford on Tuesday may have complicated the federal drug investigation. (Reporting by JoAnne Allen; Editing by Toni Reinhold)
_______________________
TOMMY:
I think the FBI is...putting on their game face.
Long ago...guys like STANFORD and the SWISS UBS CONGRESSIONAL SWINE all would have been given a free pass.
BUT now that GOP MAFIA DON DICK CHENEY IS GONE...the FBI is reinvigorated under Barack and Holder?...I guess?
Stanford under federal drug investigation - ABC-TV
Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:29pm EST
WASHINGTON, Feb 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and others have been investigating whether Texas billionaire Allen Stanford was involved in laundering drug money for Mexico Gulf cartel, ABC News reported on Wednesday, citing federal authorities.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday charged Stanford and two executives of Stanford Group Co with an $8 billion fraud.
Mexican authorities detained one of Stanford's private planes as part of the investigation, which has been ongoing since last year, ABC reported citing unnamed officials.
Officials said checks found inside the plane were believed to be connected to the Gulf cartel, reputed to be Mexico's most violent gang, ABC reported.
ABC cited authorities as saying that Stanford could potentially face criminal charges of money laundering and bribery of foreign officials.
Authorities said the SEC's action against Stanford on Tuesday may have complicated the federal drug investigation. (Reporting by JoAnne Allen; Editing by Toni Reinhold)
_______________________
TOMMY:
I think the FBI is...putting on their game face.
Long ago...guys like STANFORD and the SWISS UBS CONGRESSIONAL SWINE all would have been given a free pass.
BUT now that GOP MAFIA DON DICK CHENEY IS GONE...the FBI is reinvigorated under Barack and Holder?...I guess?
71,000 Dairy cows...were slaughtered into Hamburger? Anybody figure this out at Dept of AG under VILSACK
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200902/s2496093.htm
US cattle slaughter rates rise, as dairy price falls
Thursday, 19/02/2009
US Dairy Prices are collapsing with falling global deman, but unlike the EU, the US so far is resisting domestic industry pressure to revive export subsidies.
USDA's Gerry Bange says cheese, butter, and non-fat dry milk prices are all collapsing, and all getting very close to US support target levels.
___________________________
TOMMY:
Not at the retail level are those prices collapsing?
When gas was at 3.50 a gallon, price of butter and milk was high, like they are now?
When markets shift...often times the profits and invisible hand...do not react instantaneously...so...lower gas prices, should give us lower prices at the retail level..but it takes time....and then gas goes up again, so...no savings at retail level?
Is that the plan?
_________________________
"The non-fat dry milk price is now down around 83 cents (US), just 3 cents above the support of 80 cents."
But so far, US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has only talked of buying more commodity for domestic nutrition programs, not renewing discontinued dairy export subsidies, which are highly controversial with Australia.
Meanwhile, a US dairy farmer denies high slaughter rates of dairy cattle in the US will flood the American hamburger market.
Recently 71,000 cows were slaughtered in one week, America's highest slaughter of dairy cattle in 20 years.
Most of the meat is then sold to the hamburger market.
Ray Souza is a dairy farmer from northern California, and president of the Western United Dairymen:
"The national beef herd has slowed down and the dairy herd has kind of filled that gap and it's made it so the market can accept a lot of the cattle," he says.
"And then the eating habits have changed somewhat too. Because of the economy, people are eating at fast food hamburger chains, so the demand for hamburgers has actually got a little bit stronger.
"So that has helped to absorb some of this meat."
Market analysts are waiting to see if the increase of US dairy cow slaughter rates will affect the amount of Australian meat being sold to America.
Last month, frozen beef exports to the US were up on figures from January last year.
February figures are due to come out in the next two weeks
US cattle slaughter rates rise, as dairy price falls
Thursday, 19/02/2009
US Dairy Prices are collapsing with falling global deman, but unlike the EU, the US so far is resisting domestic industry pressure to revive export subsidies.
USDA's Gerry Bange says cheese, butter, and non-fat dry milk prices are all collapsing, and all getting very close to US support target levels.
___________________________
TOMMY:
Not at the retail level are those prices collapsing?
When gas was at 3.50 a gallon, price of butter and milk was high, like they are now?
When markets shift...often times the profits and invisible hand...do not react instantaneously...so...lower gas prices, should give us lower prices at the retail level..but it takes time....and then gas goes up again, so...no savings at retail level?
Is that the plan?
_________________________
"The non-fat dry milk price is now down around 83 cents (US), just 3 cents above the support of 80 cents."
But so far, US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has only talked of buying more commodity for domestic nutrition programs, not renewing discontinued dairy export subsidies, which are highly controversial with Australia.
Meanwhile, a US dairy farmer denies high slaughter rates of dairy cattle in the US will flood the American hamburger market.
Recently 71,000 cows were slaughtered in one week, America's highest slaughter of dairy cattle in 20 years.
Most of the meat is then sold to the hamburger market.
Ray Souza is a dairy farmer from northern California, and president of the Western United Dairymen:
"The national beef herd has slowed down and the dairy herd has kind of filled that gap and it's made it so the market can accept a lot of the cattle," he says.
"And then the eating habits have changed somewhat too. Because of the economy, people are eating at fast food hamburger chains, so the demand for hamburgers has actually got a little bit stronger.
"So that has helped to absorb some of this meat."
Market analysts are waiting to see if the increase of US dairy cow slaughter rates will affect the amount of Australian meat being sold to America.
Last month, frozen beef exports to the US were up on figures from January last year.
February figures are due to come out in the next two weeks
DICK CHENEY is still running FALSE FLAG TERRORISM behind KBR front: Soviets fire on Chinese ship carrying nuke bound for America?
NOTE: click blogpost title above to watch recent video of RUSSIAN NAVY firing on CHINESE BOAT "New Star" ...thought to be carrying a stolen soviet nuke to Seattle, WA?
DOES THE FBI HAVE ANY INFO ON A STOLEN RUSSIAN NUKE being used by CHENEY'S MAFIA CRIME FAMILY (behind another false flag front) to rock America into more appeasement of fascism?????
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1209.htm
February 19 2009
Russia Sinks Chinese Ship Bound For US With Nuclear Warhead
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers (Traducción al Español abajo)
Russian Military Analysts are reporting today that Russian Coast Guard and Naval forces were ‘forced’ to sink the Chinese registered cargo ship New Star bound for US Port of Seattle after it refused orders to stop and be boarded over fears it was carrying a ‘missing’ nuclear warhead from a Russian Topol-M intercontinental ballistics missile.
Just released video of the warnings given to the New Star to halt clearly show its violations of International Law giving Russian Naval forces no choice but to sink the vessel, and the battle of which can read:
“The Global Times said the New Star was sequestered in Nakhodka for 'alleged smuggling,' a charged rejected by J-Rui. The newspaper said a Russian Coast Guard cruiser fired at least 500 rounds on the ship and 'forced it to sail back toward the port in force-6 winds.'
The ship began to sink on the way back to port and one of the two lifeboats was engulfed by high waves, the newspaper said. It said three of the eight missing crew were Chinese and the rest were Indonesian.
China's Foreign Ministry gave different numbers for the crew and missing, saying three of the 10 Chinese crew on board were rescued and seven were missing.”
Most disturbing about these reports are them stating that the New Star is owned by the J Rui Lucky Shipping Co Ltd. which is a private limited company registered in Hong Kong and has long been known by Russian FSB Analysts to be an International shipping carrier of US Military and CIA cargo to support their Global War on Terror under contract with the American giant services company KBR whose former leader was US Vice President Cheney.
These reports further state that President Obama and the Globalist elite he represents are now ‘desperate’ in their attempts to stage a 9/11 type false flag operation in order to complete the subjugation of their citizens prior to the expected outbreak of massive social unrest they state will be occurring during the coming summer months as their economy continues to implode.
To the fears being felt by the American and European Globalists we can read as reported by German experts:
“The global financial crisis could lead to an economic meltdown - and to instable democratic structures in the western world. Because governments spend more billions than they possess, the outcome will probably be a massive inflation connected with millions of lost jobs - or even the total collapse. That's why President Barack Obama needed an astronomic 3B-stimulus. But the Big Bailout will probably end as Big Bang: With no changes on the more-growth-more-capital-more financial market power mentality there will be no escape from the crisis. A global monetary reform seems to be the last exit from chaos and before social unrests will inevitably start.”
These German fears were further confirmed yesterday by the former head of the US Federal Reserve, and as we can also read:
“Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Tuesday the current global recession will "surely be the longest and deepest" since the 1930s and more government rescue funds are needed to stabilize the U.S. financial system.”
Virtually unknown to the American people is that their government has long planned for their subjugation and of the massive concentration camps planned for them we can read:
“There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general's signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached.”
Most surprising of all of these events, is that even though these American people have lost more of their wealth than even their ancestors did during the Great Depression, and as their new President Obama continues vigorously perusing the Globalist agenda fully implemented by the nearly 25 year US rule by the Bush and Clinton Families, they continue to remain ignorant of the many catastrophic events to come that this latest incident shows the mad bloodlust of these monsters has no bounds whatsoever.
© February 19, 2009 EU and US all rights reserved
[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.] .
Translation to Spanish by: Sister Maru Barraza, Mazatlán, Mexico
_______________________________________________
tommy:
SOMEBODY TELL ME WHY OBAMA--HOLDER--MUELLER have not arrested DICK CHENEY?
CHRISTINA MOORE MURDER used NSA 902ND SIGINT, sent to Austin lawyer WHITTINGTON (later shot by Dead Eye Dick after...only after...CHENEY found out I linked him to Christina Moore murder)...then to NSA TSP mercs (who were also sent after me when I lived in Austin, Texas).
All of THIS IS COVERED UP BY CORRUPT, TREASONOUS, LYING, JERKOFF, FAGGOT, PUNK LOWLIFE NAMED ROBERT SWAN MUELLER, III, director of the FBI.
HOLDER...what the fuck are you doing...and not doing...AND JUST WHAT IS YOUR DUMBFUCKING PROBLEM with carrying out your fiduciary duty to this country?
MR HOLDER..................either shit, get off the pot, or fucking arrest Dick Cheney.
Use WAR COMMISSIONS ACT TO CHIP, MIND CONTROL, AND SUBLIMINALLY DEBRIEF MR CHENEY on all his past crimes..........then put the video on the fucking internet.
Do something mutherfucker.
It's all legal...doncha know?
It was used on me, Dr Mark Gordon, Rich Gordon, so many others.
___________________________________________________________________
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1460406.php/Eight_feared_dead_after_Russia_sinks_Chinese_cargo_ship__2nd_Roundup__
Eight feared dead after Russia sinks Chinese cargo ship (2nd Roundup)
Asia-Pacific News
Feb 19, 2009, 9:46 GMT
Beijing - Eight crew were feared dead after Russian Coast Guard vessels fired on a Chinese ship that was fleeing port after a dispute over a rice cargo, Chinese and Russian sources said Thursday.
China's Foreign Ministry said the cargo ship New Star sank Saturday off Russia's eastern port of Nakhodka in waters close to Japan.
The Hong Kong-based owner of the ship on Thursday accused Russian officials of covering up an 'act of murder' by a warship.
'Their account does not mention the fact that their warship fired on our cargo ship,' the Chinese government website china.org quoted a statement by the J-Rui Lucky Shipping Company as saying.
'What they are portraying as a rescue was in fact an act of murder,' the statement said.
J-Rui said it had leased the New Star since 2006 to the Tongyu shipping company, based in the eastern Chinese province of Zhejiang.
Chinese and Russian media reports said the Russian Coast Guard opened fire after the ship ignored warnings to return to port.
China's Global Times newspaper said at least one sailor was shot dead before the ship sank.
Russia's RIA Novosti news agency said eight crew died at sea after the Sierra Leone-flagged vessel sank during a storm.
The ship had tried to deliver a cargo of rice, but a Russian buyer refused to accept the rice because of quality concerns, both reports said.
Tonggyu ordered the captain to flee Russian waters because it feared legal action, the Russian agency quoted local prosecutors as saying.
The ship then left port without permission and 'crossed the Russian border illegally,' local police told the agency.
The 16 Indonesian and Chinese crew entered life rafts after the ship began sinking and eight were rescued by a Russian ship, the report said.
Attempts to save the other eight crew 'failed when they were washed out to sea and drowned,' it said.
The Global Times said the New Star was sequestered in Nakhodka for 'alleged smuggling,' a charged rejected by J-Rui.
The newspaper said a Russian Coast Guard cruiser fired at least 500 rounds on the ship and 'forced it to sail back toward the port in force-6 winds.'
The ship began to sink on the way back to port and one of the two lifeboats was engulfed by high waves, the newspaper said.
It said three of the eight missing crew were Chinese and the rest were Indonesian.
China's Foreign Ministry gave different numbers for the crew and missing, saying three of the 10 Chinese crew on board were rescued and seven were missing.
Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu on Thursday said Chinese officials had urged Russia to 'spare no effort to help search for the missing crew members and quickly find out the causes of the incident.'
The J-Rui statement said Russian navy officers 'did not offer any assistance to the crew of the New Star to board the warship,' while the Global Times said the Chinese ship did not send an SOS signal to the Russian Coast Guard.
Russian prosecutors were investigating the conduct of the Coast Guard officers in the incident, RIA Novosti said.
DOES THE FBI HAVE ANY INFO ON A STOLEN RUSSIAN NUKE being used by CHENEY'S MAFIA CRIME FAMILY (behind another false flag front) to rock America into more appeasement of fascism?????
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1209.htm
February 19 2009
Russia Sinks Chinese Ship Bound For US With Nuclear Warhead
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers (Traducción al Español abajo)
Russian Military Analysts are reporting today that Russian Coast Guard and Naval forces were ‘forced’ to sink the Chinese registered cargo ship New Star bound for US Port of Seattle after it refused orders to stop and be boarded over fears it was carrying a ‘missing’ nuclear warhead from a Russian Topol-M intercontinental ballistics missile.
Just released video of the warnings given to the New Star to halt clearly show its violations of International Law giving Russian Naval forces no choice but to sink the vessel, and the battle of which can read:
“The Global Times said the New Star was sequestered in Nakhodka for 'alleged smuggling,' a charged rejected by J-Rui. The newspaper said a Russian Coast Guard cruiser fired at least 500 rounds on the ship and 'forced it to sail back toward the port in force-6 winds.'
The ship began to sink on the way back to port and one of the two lifeboats was engulfed by high waves, the newspaper said. It said three of the eight missing crew were Chinese and the rest were Indonesian.
China's Foreign Ministry gave different numbers for the crew and missing, saying three of the 10 Chinese crew on board were rescued and seven were missing.”
Most disturbing about these reports are them stating that the New Star is owned by the J Rui Lucky Shipping Co Ltd. which is a private limited company registered in Hong Kong and has long been known by Russian FSB Analysts to be an International shipping carrier of US Military and CIA cargo to support their Global War on Terror under contract with the American giant services company KBR whose former leader was US Vice President Cheney.
These reports further state that President Obama and the Globalist elite he represents are now ‘desperate’ in their attempts to stage a 9/11 type false flag operation in order to complete the subjugation of their citizens prior to the expected outbreak of massive social unrest they state will be occurring during the coming summer months as their economy continues to implode.
To the fears being felt by the American and European Globalists we can read as reported by German experts:
“The global financial crisis could lead to an economic meltdown - and to instable democratic structures in the western world. Because governments spend more billions than they possess, the outcome will probably be a massive inflation connected with millions of lost jobs - or even the total collapse. That's why President Barack Obama needed an astronomic 3B-stimulus. But the Big Bailout will probably end as Big Bang: With no changes on the more-growth-more-capital-more financial market power mentality there will be no escape from the crisis. A global monetary reform seems to be the last exit from chaos and before social unrests will inevitably start.”
These German fears were further confirmed yesterday by the former head of the US Federal Reserve, and as we can also read:
“Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Tuesday the current global recession will "surely be the longest and deepest" since the 1930s and more government rescue funds are needed to stabilize the U.S. financial system.”
Virtually unknown to the American people is that their government has long planned for their subjugation and of the massive concentration camps planned for them we can read:
“There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general's signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached.”
Most surprising of all of these events, is that even though these American people have lost more of their wealth than even their ancestors did during the Great Depression, and as their new President Obama continues vigorously perusing the Globalist agenda fully implemented by the nearly 25 year US rule by the Bush and Clinton Families, they continue to remain ignorant of the many catastrophic events to come that this latest incident shows the mad bloodlust of these monsters has no bounds whatsoever.
© February 19, 2009 EU and US all rights reserved
[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.] .
Translation to Spanish by: Sister Maru Barraza, Mazatlán, Mexico
_______________________________________________
tommy:
SOMEBODY TELL ME WHY OBAMA--HOLDER--MUELLER have not arrested DICK CHENEY?
CHRISTINA MOORE MURDER used NSA 902ND SIGINT, sent to Austin lawyer WHITTINGTON (later shot by Dead Eye Dick after...only after...CHENEY found out I linked him to Christina Moore murder)...then to NSA TSP mercs (who were also sent after me when I lived in Austin, Texas).
All of THIS IS COVERED UP BY CORRUPT, TREASONOUS, LYING, JERKOFF, FAGGOT, PUNK LOWLIFE NAMED ROBERT SWAN MUELLER, III, director of the FBI.
HOLDER...what the fuck are you doing...and not doing...AND JUST WHAT IS YOUR DUMBFUCKING PROBLEM with carrying out your fiduciary duty to this country?
MR HOLDER..................either shit, get off the pot, or fucking arrest Dick Cheney.
Use WAR COMMISSIONS ACT TO CHIP, MIND CONTROL, AND SUBLIMINALLY DEBRIEF MR CHENEY on all his past crimes..........then put the video on the fucking internet.
Do something mutherfucker.
It's all legal...doncha know?
It was used on me, Dr Mark Gordon, Rich Gordon, so many others.
___________________________________________________________________
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1460406.php/Eight_feared_dead_after_Russia_sinks_Chinese_cargo_ship__2nd_Roundup__
Eight feared dead after Russia sinks Chinese cargo ship (2nd Roundup)
Asia-Pacific News
Feb 19, 2009, 9:46 GMT
Beijing - Eight crew were feared dead after Russian Coast Guard vessels fired on a Chinese ship that was fleeing port after a dispute over a rice cargo, Chinese and Russian sources said Thursday.
China's Foreign Ministry said the cargo ship New Star sank Saturday off Russia's eastern port of Nakhodka in waters close to Japan.
The Hong Kong-based owner of the ship on Thursday accused Russian officials of covering up an 'act of murder' by a warship.
'Their account does not mention the fact that their warship fired on our cargo ship,' the Chinese government website china.org quoted a statement by the J-Rui Lucky Shipping Company as saying.
'What they are portraying as a rescue was in fact an act of murder,' the statement said.
J-Rui said it had leased the New Star since 2006 to the Tongyu shipping company, based in the eastern Chinese province of Zhejiang.
Chinese and Russian media reports said the Russian Coast Guard opened fire after the ship ignored warnings to return to port.
China's Global Times newspaper said at least one sailor was shot dead before the ship sank.
Russia's RIA Novosti news agency said eight crew died at sea after the Sierra Leone-flagged vessel sank during a storm.
The ship had tried to deliver a cargo of rice, but a Russian buyer refused to accept the rice because of quality concerns, both reports said.
Tonggyu ordered the captain to flee Russian waters because it feared legal action, the Russian agency quoted local prosecutors as saying.
The ship then left port without permission and 'crossed the Russian border illegally,' local police told the agency.
The 16 Indonesian and Chinese crew entered life rafts after the ship began sinking and eight were rescued by a Russian ship, the report said.
Attempts to save the other eight crew 'failed when they were washed out to sea and drowned,' it said.
The Global Times said the New Star was sequestered in Nakhodka for 'alleged smuggling,' a charged rejected by J-Rui.
The newspaper said a Russian Coast Guard cruiser fired at least 500 rounds on the ship and 'forced it to sail back toward the port in force-6 winds.'
The ship began to sink on the way back to port and one of the two lifeboats was engulfed by high waves, the newspaper said.
It said three of the eight missing crew were Chinese and the rest were Indonesian.
China's Foreign Ministry gave different numbers for the crew and missing, saying three of the 10 Chinese crew on board were rescued and seven were missing.
Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu on Thursday said Chinese officials had urged Russia to 'spare no effort to help search for the missing crew members and quickly find out the causes of the incident.'
The J-Rui statement said Russian navy officers 'did not offer any assistance to the crew of the New Star to board the warship,' while the Global Times said the Chinese ship did not send an SOS signal to the Russian Coast Guard.
Russian prosecutors were investigating the conduct of the Coast Guard officers in the incident, RIA Novosti said.
BOUGHT OFF WHORES IN CONGRESS...sit mum about HOW THEY BENEFITTED FROM FUCKING AMERICA IN THE ASS...no?
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/cbs-falsely-portrays-stanford-democratic-
CBS Falsely Portrays Stanford as Democratic Scandal
By Jon Perr Thursday Feb 19, 2009 10:00am
On Wednesday, federal authorities reported they did not know the whereabouts of Texas banker and scammer Allen Stanford.
But what we do know for certain about the financier whose frauds may yet rival the $50 billion Madoff Ponzi scheme is that he donated generously to both political parties in Washington. Of course, that would be news to viewers of CBS Evening News. Because while Stanford gave early and often to Texas Republicans John Cornyn, Tom Delay and George W. Bush, CBS portrayed the fleeing financier as a bagman for Democrats alone.
During a segment on the February 17th broadcast of the CBS Evening News, correspondent Bob Orr suggested Stanford' was a Democrats-only influence peddler (video here):
Just three months before, he hob-knobbed with top Democrats in Denver as the lead sponsor of the National Democratic Institute conference.
[Clip of Bill Clinton] "I'd like to thank the Stanford Financial Group."
Since 2000, Stanford has funneled $1.7 million to politicians, $4,600 last year to President Obama's campaign.
But as Public Citizen, Huffington Post, ABC News and Talking Points Memo all reported, Stanford and his Stanford Financial Group PAC contributed to politicians and political action committees of both parties (including $448,000 in soft money contributions from 2000 to 2001 alone) to advance his agenda of banking and money-laundering deregulation. Many others journeyed on Stanford's junkets to Antigua and elsewhere, prompting TPM to brand his company "a travel agent for Congress." (TPM has a slide show of one of those of Stanford getaways.)
As it turns out, the list of Stanford beneficiaries is long - and bipartisan.
Democrats and affiliated 527's including Tom Daschle (D-SD), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Martin Frost (D-TX) and candidate Barack Obama all received Stanford donations. Among the GOP, Trent Lott (R-MS), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), John McCain (R-AZ) and Phil Gramm (R-TX) were just a few of those on the receiving end of Stanford's largesse. As ABC reported this morning, many on both sides of the aisle, including the campaign committees of Bill Nelson, John Cornyn, John McCain and Barack Obama, moved to give his donations to charity.
All told, according to ABC, of the $7 million Stanford spent on lobbying and campaign contributions, roughly $1.5 million went to Democrats and $840,000 to Republicans.
But it is Stanford's ties to some of the leading lights of the Republican Party that is strikingly absent from CBS' coverage of the growing scandal.
As Huffington Post reported Tuesday, President Bush was among the first visited by the Stanford gravy train in 2001:
Stanford gave an additional $100,000 to the Bush Inaugural Committee - as the new administration prepared its own money laundering strategy. More stringent controls were not proposed. Instead, the Treasury Department went to work watering down reporting requirements that are considered burdensome by many (including Stanford) in the financial services industry In August, Treasury changed its tax shelter regulations to allow corporations to avoid some reporting requirements in an attempt to "ease tax administration."
(As TPM noted, Stanford's bipartisan fundraising preceded the arrival of the Bush administration. According to Public Citizen, Texas Senator Phil Gramm boasted, "I killed the administration's anti-money-laundering legislation" during Bill Clinton's tenure.)
As the Dallas Morning News detailed, Texas Senator John Cornyn was among the top five beneficiaries of Stanford's checkbook and airplanes. In 2004, Stanford's company bankrolled a four-day trip to a Caribbean resort for Cornyn and his wife Cindy. (Cornyn did report as required the $7400 junket.) In all, Cornyn received $19,700 in contributions. Through spokesman Kevin McLaughlin, Cornyn denied any wrong-doing:
"It was strictly a fact-finding trip. They have offices in Houston, and they were doing a lot of business out of Antigua. There was nothing untoward or unseemly about the company five years ago."
And then there's indicted former House Majority Leader Tom Delay. As HuffPo related yesterday:
Though tough anti-money-laundering legislation overwhelmingly sailed through the House Banking Committee in 2000, it had difficulty getting to another vote as powerful GOP lawmakers -- then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and then-Senate Banking Committee chair Phil Gramm stymied its future.
DeLay was among the largest recipients of Stanford's largesse. And "DeLay's committees paid for flights on Stanford's jets at least 16 times since 2003, including on Oct. 20, the day the former House majority leader was booked in a Houston courthouse on money-laundering charges," according to Bloomberg News.
None of which is to suggest that any of the politicians from either party listed above broke the law. But with the cost of Stanford's financial frauds at $8 billion and growing, it sure doesn't look good. And if you only watched CBS News, you'd think it's just a problem for Democrats.
(This piece is crossposted at Perrspectives.)
_______________________________________________________________
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/six_degrees_of_allen_stanford.php
Six Degrees Of Allen Stanford
By Zachary Roth -
February 18, 2009, 2:24PM
Here at TPMmuckraker, the more we think about the Allen Stanford saga, the more it seems like a kind of harmonic convergence of recent high-profile muck.
The emerging story's range of ties -- some incidental, some more substantive -- to some other high-profile scandals of the past few years, from Bermard Madoff to Jack Abramoff to Rod Blagojevich -- is pretty striking.
First, Madoff.
It's not just that questions about the pace of the SEC's Stanford investigation -- including whether the agency's decision to bring charges yesterday was prompted in part by recent news reports -- have to be considered in light of the SEC's well-documented missteps on the Madoff case.
It's also that, according to the SEC complaint, Stanford's investors were exposed to losses via Madoff -- but falsely assured them they weren't.
From the complaint:
In a December 2008 Monthly Report, the bank told investors that their money was safe because SID "had no direct or indirect exposure to any of [Bernard] Madoffs investments."
But, contrary to this statement, at least $400,000 in Tier 2 was invested in Meridian, a New York-based hedge fund that used Tremont Partners as its asset manager. Tremont invested approximately 6-8% of the SIB assets they indirectly managed with Madoffs investment firm.
Pendergest, Davis and Stanford knew about this exposure to loss relating to the Meridian investment. On December 15, 2008, an Analyst informed Pendergast, Davis and Stanford in a weekly report that his "rough estimate is a loss of $400k ... based on the indirect exposure" to Madoff'.
As for Abramoff, we reported yesterday that a bevvy lawmakers with ties to the crooked lobbyist or a history of other ethical problems - including then-GOP members of Congress Bob Ney, Katherine Harris, Tom Feeney, and John Sweeney, as well as current Rep. Charlie Rangel -- went on a 2005 junket to Antigua that was funded by an organization with close links to Stanford.
Indeed, until yesterday, that organization, the Inter-American Economic Council, had photographs from the trip -- showing Harris, Feeney, and pals hobnobbing in splendor with Antiguan dignitaries -- posted on its website. It's since removed them, but not before we saved them. You can see the slideshow here.
And there's also another congressional angle which, though not on a par with the Abramoff sleaze, nonetheless appears to reflect the cynical money-for-access culture that has characterized Washington politics in recent years:
In 2002, as we reported yesterday, after lobbying from Stanford's firm, the Democratic-controlled Senate killed a bill designed to bolster efforts to catch financial fraud. During that cycle, Stanford's company had given an eye-popping $800,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. And according to campaign finance records examined by TPMmuckraker, it had also given generously to key Democrats on the Senate Banking committee: $8000 to Chuck Schumer, $6000 to Chris Dodd, and $1000 to then-chair Paul Sarbanes.
So there's that.
What about Blago?
Well, it turns out that, according to lobby disclosure reports examined by TPMmuckraker, one of Stanford's paid lobbyists in 2002 -- the year that the firm was lobbying on the anti-financial-fraud bill -- was John Wyma. One form lists Wyma and his team's work as "Helping them address legislature (sic) which involves financial services companies."
In case you'd forgotten, Wyma used to be one of Blagojevich's closest aides, before cooperating with Pat Fitzgerald's investigation by secretly recording conversations with the then governor.
The two were apparently thick as thieves at one time. The Chicago Tribune reported at the time of Blago's arrest:
The governor routinely reported exchanging personal gifts and often appeared at Wyma-sponsored fundraisers where Wyma's clients hobnobbed with the governor before turning over checks for his campaign fund.
Now all we need is a link to the U.S. Attorney firings, and we'll be all set.
________________________________________
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499067,00.html
Report: Biden's Relatives Ran Fund Marketed By Stanford
By Zachary Roth - February 24, 2009, 10:05AM
A fund of hedge funds run by Vice President Biden's son and brother -- Hunter Biden and James Biden -- was marketed exclusively by Allen Stanford's companies, reports the Wall Street Journal.
From the paper:
The $50 million fund was jointly branded between the Bidens' Paradigm Global Advisors LLC and a Stanford Financial Group entity and was known as the Paradigm Stanford Capital Management Core Alternative Fund. Stanford-related companies marketed the fund to investors and also invested about $2.7 million of their own money in the fund, according to a lawyer for Paradigm. Paradigm Global Advisors is owned through a holding company by the vice president's son, Hunter, and Joe Biden's brother, James.
The fund has offered to turn over the $2.7 million investment it received from Mr. Stanford's firm in 2007 to a court-appointed receiver in the SEC's civil fraud case involving Mr. Stanford, according to Paradigm's attorney, Marc X. LoPresti. The fund terminated its relationship with Mr. Stanford's companies after the SEC filed civil charges against them last week, Mr. LoPresti said.
Paradigm's lawyer told the Journal that the Bidens never met or communicated with Mr. Stanford. "There is no connection between the Bidens and Allen Stanford or Stanford period, full stop," he said. "There never was any meeting between any member of the Biden family, no phone calls, zero correspondence."
Stanford was charged last week by the SEC with orchestrating an $8 billion investment scam. He has cultivated ties to a slew of Washington lawmakers.
A Paradigm marketer, Jeffrey Schneider, told the Journal he brought in the Stanford business.
According to Paradigm's lawyer, companies owned by Stanford put up $2.7 million in seed money and marketed the fund. SEC records show the fund, launched in June 2007, had 104 investors with assets of $49.8 million, as of November 2008.
It's hard to know what to make of this for now. But there seems to be more information yet to come out about the fee structure of the arrangement.
The paper reports:
Under an agreement, Stanford was entitled to share in a portion of the fund's management and performance fees, Mr. LoPresti [Paradigm's lawyer] said. "That's all I'm going to say on the fee side of things," he said.
Just what the White House needs.
CBS Falsely Portrays Stanford as Democratic Scandal
By Jon Perr Thursday Feb 19, 2009 10:00am
On Wednesday, federal authorities reported they did not know the whereabouts of Texas banker and scammer Allen Stanford.
But what we do know for certain about the financier whose frauds may yet rival the $50 billion Madoff Ponzi scheme is that he donated generously to both political parties in Washington. Of course, that would be news to viewers of CBS Evening News. Because while Stanford gave early and often to Texas Republicans John Cornyn, Tom Delay and George W. Bush, CBS portrayed the fleeing financier as a bagman for Democrats alone.
During a segment on the February 17th broadcast of the CBS Evening News, correspondent Bob Orr suggested Stanford' was a Democrats-only influence peddler (video here):
Just three months before, he hob-knobbed with top Democrats in Denver as the lead sponsor of the National Democratic Institute conference.
[Clip of Bill Clinton] "I'd like to thank the Stanford Financial Group."
Since 2000, Stanford has funneled $1.7 million to politicians, $4,600 last year to President Obama's campaign.
But as Public Citizen, Huffington Post, ABC News and Talking Points Memo all reported, Stanford and his Stanford Financial Group PAC contributed to politicians and political action committees of both parties (including $448,000 in soft money contributions from 2000 to 2001 alone) to advance his agenda of banking and money-laundering deregulation. Many others journeyed on Stanford's junkets to Antigua and elsewhere, prompting TPM to brand his company "a travel agent for Congress." (TPM has a slide show of one of those of Stanford getaways.)
As it turns out, the list of Stanford beneficiaries is long - and bipartisan.
Democrats and affiliated 527's including Tom Daschle (D-SD), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Martin Frost (D-TX) and candidate Barack Obama all received Stanford donations. Among the GOP, Trent Lott (R-MS), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), John McCain (R-AZ) and Phil Gramm (R-TX) were just a few of those on the receiving end of Stanford's largesse. As ABC reported this morning, many on both sides of the aisle, including the campaign committees of Bill Nelson, John Cornyn, John McCain and Barack Obama, moved to give his donations to charity.
All told, according to ABC, of the $7 million Stanford spent on lobbying and campaign contributions, roughly $1.5 million went to Democrats and $840,000 to Republicans.
But it is Stanford's ties to some of the leading lights of the Republican Party that is strikingly absent from CBS' coverage of the growing scandal.
As Huffington Post reported Tuesday, President Bush was among the first visited by the Stanford gravy train in 2001:
Stanford gave an additional $100,000 to the Bush Inaugural Committee - as the new administration prepared its own money laundering strategy. More stringent controls were not proposed. Instead, the Treasury Department went to work watering down reporting requirements that are considered burdensome by many (including Stanford) in the financial services industry In August, Treasury changed its tax shelter regulations to allow corporations to avoid some reporting requirements in an attempt to "ease tax administration."
(As TPM noted, Stanford's bipartisan fundraising preceded the arrival of the Bush administration. According to Public Citizen, Texas Senator Phil Gramm boasted, "I killed the administration's anti-money-laundering legislation" during Bill Clinton's tenure.)
As the Dallas Morning News detailed, Texas Senator John Cornyn was among the top five beneficiaries of Stanford's checkbook and airplanes. In 2004, Stanford's company bankrolled a four-day trip to a Caribbean resort for Cornyn and his wife Cindy. (Cornyn did report as required the $7400 junket.) In all, Cornyn received $19,700 in contributions. Through spokesman Kevin McLaughlin, Cornyn denied any wrong-doing:
"It was strictly a fact-finding trip. They have offices in Houston, and they were doing a lot of business out of Antigua. There was nothing untoward or unseemly about the company five years ago."
And then there's indicted former House Majority Leader Tom Delay. As HuffPo related yesterday:
Though tough anti-money-laundering legislation overwhelmingly sailed through the House Banking Committee in 2000, it had difficulty getting to another vote as powerful GOP lawmakers -- then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and then-Senate Banking Committee chair Phil Gramm stymied its future.
DeLay was among the largest recipients of Stanford's largesse. And "DeLay's committees paid for flights on Stanford's jets at least 16 times since 2003, including on Oct. 20, the day the former House majority leader was booked in a Houston courthouse on money-laundering charges," according to Bloomberg News.
None of which is to suggest that any of the politicians from either party listed above broke the law. But with the cost of Stanford's financial frauds at $8 billion and growing, it sure doesn't look good. And if you only watched CBS News, you'd think it's just a problem for Democrats.
(This piece is crossposted at Perrspectives.)
_______________________________________________________________
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/six_degrees_of_allen_stanford.php
Six Degrees Of Allen Stanford
By Zachary Roth -
February 18, 2009, 2:24PM
Here at TPMmuckraker, the more we think about the Allen Stanford saga, the more it seems like a kind of harmonic convergence of recent high-profile muck.
The emerging story's range of ties -- some incidental, some more substantive -- to some other high-profile scandals of the past few years, from Bermard Madoff to Jack Abramoff to Rod Blagojevich -- is pretty striking.
First, Madoff.
It's not just that questions about the pace of the SEC's Stanford investigation -- including whether the agency's decision to bring charges yesterday was prompted in part by recent news reports -- have to be considered in light of the SEC's well-documented missteps on the Madoff case.
It's also that, according to the SEC complaint, Stanford's investors were exposed to losses via Madoff -- but falsely assured them they weren't.
From the complaint:
In a December 2008 Monthly Report, the bank told investors that their money was safe because SID "had no direct or indirect exposure to any of [Bernard] Madoffs investments."
But, contrary to this statement, at least $400,000 in Tier 2 was invested in Meridian, a New York-based hedge fund that used Tremont Partners as its asset manager. Tremont invested approximately 6-8% of the SIB assets they indirectly managed with Madoffs investment firm.
Pendergest, Davis and Stanford knew about this exposure to loss relating to the Meridian investment. On December 15, 2008, an Analyst informed Pendergast, Davis and Stanford in a weekly report that his "rough estimate is a loss of $400k ... based on the indirect exposure" to Madoff'.
As for Abramoff, we reported yesterday that a bevvy lawmakers with ties to the crooked lobbyist or a history of other ethical problems - including then-GOP members of Congress Bob Ney, Katherine Harris, Tom Feeney, and John Sweeney, as well as current Rep. Charlie Rangel -- went on a 2005 junket to Antigua that was funded by an organization with close links to Stanford.
Indeed, until yesterday, that organization, the Inter-American Economic Council, had photographs from the trip -- showing Harris, Feeney, and pals hobnobbing in splendor with Antiguan dignitaries -- posted on its website. It's since removed them, but not before we saved them. You can see the slideshow here.
And there's also another congressional angle which, though not on a par with the Abramoff sleaze, nonetheless appears to reflect the cynical money-for-access culture that has characterized Washington politics in recent years:
In 2002, as we reported yesterday, after lobbying from Stanford's firm, the Democratic-controlled Senate killed a bill designed to bolster efforts to catch financial fraud. During that cycle, Stanford's company had given an eye-popping $800,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. And according to campaign finance records examined by TPMmuckraker, it had also given generously to key Democrats on the Senate Banking committee: $8000 to Chuck Schumer, $6000 to Chris Dodd, and $1000 to then-chair Paul Sarbanes.
So there's that.
What about Blago?
Well, it turns out that, according to lobby disclosure reports examined by TPMmuckraker, one of Stanford's paid lobbyists in 2002 -- the year that the firm was lobbying on the anti-financial-fraud bill -- was John Wyma. One form lists Wyma and his team's work as "Helping them address legislature (sic) which involves financial services companies."
In case you'd forgotten, Wyma used to be one of Blagojevich's closest aides, before cooperating with Pat Fitzgerald's investigation by secretly recording conversations with the then governor.
The two were apparently thick as thieves at one time. The Chicago Tribune reported at the time of Blago's arrest:
The governor routinely reported exchanging personal gifts and often appeared at Wyma-sponsored fundraisers where Wyma's clients hobnobbed with the governor before turning over checks for his campaign fund.
Now all we need is a link to the U.S. Attorney firings, and we'll be all set.
________________________________________
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499067,00.html
Report: Biden's Relatives Ran Fund Marketed By Stanford
By Zachary Roth - February 24, 2009, 10:05AM
A fund of hedge funds run by Vice President Biden's son and brother -- Hunter Biden and James Biden -- was marketed exclusively by Allen Stanford's companies, reports the Wall Street Journal.
From the paper:
The $50 million fund was jointly branded between the Bidens' Paradigm Global Advisors LLC and a Stanford Financial Group entity and was known as the Paradigm Stanford Capital Management Core Alternative Fund. Stanford-related companies marketed the fund to investors and also invested about $2.7 million of their own money in the fund, according to a lawyer for Paradigm. Paradigm Global Advisors is owned through a holding company by the vice president's son, Hunter, and Joe Biden's brother, James.
The fund has offered to turn over the $2.7 million investment it received from Mr. Stanford's firm in 2007 to a court-appointed receiver in the SEC's civil fraud case involving Mr. Stanford, according to Paradigm's attorney, Marc X. LoPresti. The fund terminated its relationship with Mr. Stanford's companies after the SEC filed civil charges against them last week, Mr. LoPresti said.
Paradigm's lawyer told the Journal that the Bidens never met or communicated with Mr. Stanford. "There is no connection between the Bidens and Allen Stanford or Stanford period, full stop," he said. "There never was any meeting between any member of the Biden family, no phone calls, zero correspondence."
Stanford was charged last week by the SEC with orchestrating an $8 billion investment scam. He has cultivated ties to a slew of Washington lawmakers.
A Paradigm marketer, Jeffrey Schneider, told the Journal he brought in the Stanford business.
According to Paradigm's lawyer, companies owned by Stanford put up $2.7 million in seed money and marketed the fund. SEC records show the fund, launched in June 2007, had 104 investors with assets of $49.8 million, as of November 2008.
It's hard to know what to make of this for now. But there seems to be more information yet to come out about the fee structure of the arrangement.
The paper reports:
Under an agreement, Stanford was entitled to share in a portion of the fund's management and performance fees, Mr. LoPresti [Paradigm's lawyer] said. "That's all I'm going to say on the fee side of things," he said.
Just what the White House needs.
Swiss UBS IRS fraud: How big is this?...Where do corrupt congressional scum hide their money?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/ubs_to_pay_fine_give_up_list_of_clients_on_whose_b.php
UBS To Pay Fine, Give Up List Of Clients On Whose Behalf It Schemed
By Zachary Roth -
February 18, 2009, 6:27PM
The New York Times reports:
Tearing a hole in the veil of secrecy surrounding Swiss banking, UBS agreed on Wednesday to pay $780 million to settle federal claims that it helped wealthy Americans evade taxes and to disclose the names of up to 19,000 clients.
...
Under the agreement, UBS admitted to conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service.
It's that agreement to give up the names of its wealthy clients that's the big deal here. The bank had been refusing to disclose the names, but appeared to cave with the threat of indictments hanging over its head.
Prosecutors allege that UBS helped clients evade $300 million a year in taxes.
Last fall, Raoul Weil, who ran the firm's global wealth management and business banking division, was indicted in connection with the scheme. And a few months earlier, a former UBS exec, Bradley Birkenfeld, pleaded guilty to helping a client evade millions of dollars in federal income taxes while with the firm.
____________________________
tommy:
In a battle between "good and evil"...(the only battle OBAMA--HOLDER--MUELLER should be fighting) the war wages on a front that includes targeting of those I call "the BOUGHT OFF LYING COCKSUCKERS AT THE US SENATE, AND US HOUSE."
Where do they bank their ill gotten gain?
When lobbyists buy congress...are you sure the QUID PRO QUO does not involve some "access to offshore bank accounts"?
Is that part of the lobbying?
BOB MUELLER AND HOLDER and OBAMA could "talk to Chauncey "chuck" Hayes in the Lexington, Kentucky Fed Pen about "how he put together damaging info" on alot of corrupt congressional swine who "inexplicabely all resigned in 1995--96 after HAYES PACKETS OF BANK RECORDS" were rejected by mainstream media...but...also sent directly to the politicians.
Nice story.
Nobody wants a Pulitizer Prize?
What offshore haven has the bank records? Swiss UBS?
Maybe MUELLER and FBI are ready...to come together and "RUN THE COUNTRY UNDER FACTION THREE" with input and access to all domestic and foreign issues...with OBAMA holding court as the final say so?
Not a bad idea...since FACTION ONE AND TWO have destroyed America.
UBS To Pay Fine, Give Up List Of Clients On Whose Behalf It Schemed
By Zachary Roth -
February 18, 2009, 6:27PM
The New York Times reports:
Tearing a hole in the veil of secrecy surrounding Swiss banking, UBS agreed on Wednesday to pay $780 million to settle federal claims that it helped wealthy Americans evade taxes and to disclose the names of up to 19,000 clients.
...
Under the agreement, UBS admitted to conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service.
It's that agreement to give up the names of its wealthy clients that's the big deal here. The bank had been refusing to disclose the names, but appeared to cave with the threat of indictments hanging over its head.
Prosecutors allege that UBS helped clients evade $300 million a year in taxes.
Last fall, Raoul Weil, who ran the firm's global wealth management and business banking division, was indicted in connection with the scheme. And a few months earlier, a former UBS exec, Bradley Birkenfeld, pleaded guilty to helping a client evade millions of dollars in federal income taxes while with the firm.
____________________________
tommy:
In a battle between "good and evil"...(the only battle OBAMA--HOLDER--MUELLER should be fighting) the war wages on a front that includes targeting of those I call "the BOUGHT OFF LYING COCKSUCKERS AT THE US SENATE, AND US HOUSE."
Where do they bank their ill gotten gain?
When lobbyists buy congress...are you sure the QUID PRO QUO does not involve some "access to offshore bank accounts"?
Is that part of the lobbying?
BOB MUELLER AND HOLDER and OBAMA could "talk to Chauncey "chuck" Hayes in the Lexington, Kentucky Fed Pen about "how he put together damaging info" on alot of corrupt congressional swine who "inexplicabely all resigned in 1995--96 after HAYES PACKETS OF BANK RECORDS" were rejected by mainstream media...but...also sent directly to the politicians.
Nice story.
Nobody wants a Pulitizer Prize?
What offshore haven has the bank records? Swiss UBS?
Maybe MUELLER and FBI are ready...to come together and "RUN THE COUNTRY UNDER FACTION THREE" with input and access to all domestic and foreign issues...with OBAMA holding court as the final say so?
Not a bad idea...since FACTION ONE AND TWO have destroyed America.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
More proof the KIKES GOT TO GO: Rahmbo Emmanuel (Mossad's 'mega') is running our country into the ground? Who wants to help OBAMA run the Kikes out?
http://www.bollyn.info/home/articles/polphil/rahm-emanuel-and-barack-obama/
The Israeli Who Runs the Obama White House
Written by Christopher Bollyn
Thursday, 06 November 2008
One of the key players in the Obama administration’s $900 billion economic stimulus package is Obama’s new budget director Peter R. Orszag.
Orszag, 40, is the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the arm of the White House responsible for crafting the federal budget and overseeing the effectiveness of federal programs. He worked closely with Rahm Emanuel in the Clinton administration - when the disastrous NAFTA was passed - and was one of the first Obama appointees to be approved.
”In the coming years, no bureaucrat will be as decisive as Peter Orszag,” Ezra Klein wrote recently in The American Prospect. So, who is Peter Richard Orszag and what kind of decisions will he make with the budget he controls? (Based on his background one would be well advised to prepare for a financial trainwreck.)
Oddly, Orszag’s background has received virtually no attention in the media. At this critical moment, however, it would be foolish to ignore the troubling background of Obama’s budget director, which deserves to be looked at very carefully. Orszag, for example, could start by explaining exactly what happened to the Icelandic economy. Orszag was, after all, the founder and president of the economic consultancy firm which advised the Central Bank of Iceland - before it went bankrupt. How did Icelandic banks become so indebted? Ask Peter Orszag.
Orszag is an economist who served six years in the Clinton administration (1993-8) under Robert E. Rubin, the former treasury secretary who recently resigned from his senior position at the woefully mismanaged and nearly bankrupt Citigroup. The fact that Orszag was a protege of the now disgraced Rubin certainly does not bode well for the Obama administration.
Rubin strongly opposed the regulation of derivatives when such regulation was proposed in 1997. Credit derivatives of mortgage-backed securities were the key reason for the recent failure of a number of large financial institutions, including AIG and Citigroup.
In 1999, Rubin joined Citigroup as a board member and a participant "in strategic managerial and operational matters of the Company.” The Wall Street Journal noted that Citigroup shareholders suffered losses of more than 70 percent since Rubin joined the firm and that he encouraged changes that led the firm to the brink of collapse. In December 2008, investors filed a lawsuit contending that Citigroup executives, including Rubin, sold shares at inflated prices while concealing the firm’s risks.
Orszag, a Jew, served on the president’s Council of Economic Advisers in 1993, under Rubin, when the Israeli Rahm Emanuel, Clinton’s senior adviser, was pushing the disastrous NAFTA legislation through Congress. Prior to joining the Clinton team Orszag was an economic adviser for the Russian Ministry of Finance in Moscow from 1992-93. This was a period of rampant financial criminality during which many Russian mineral assets came under the control of the so-called Jewish oligarchs who became instant billionaires. Most of these oligarchs fled Russia when their crimes were exposed and now live in Britain or Israel, where they obtained citizenship.
Born in Boston on December 16, 1968, Orszag graduated from Princeton University in 1991. He then attended the London School of Economics, where he earned a degree in 1992 and where he obtained his PhD in 1997. The London School of Economics was established by members of the Fabian Society, who believed in advancing socialism through gradual reforms.
The Fabian Society is a British socialist movement, whose purpose is to advance the principles of Social democracy via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary means. The ideology of the Fabians is said to be described in the quote, "Fabianism feeds on Capitalism, but excretes Communism."
In 1998, after serving in the Clinton administration, Orszag co-founded an economic consulting group company with his brother and Joseph Stiglitz called Sebago Associates, where he served as president through 2007. The firm's clients have included the World Bank, the Nordic Council of Ministers, and most notably, the Central Bank of Iceland. The once prosperous economy of Iceland has been devastated by the current economic crisis, which its citizens say was carried out by a gang of financial criminals who followed disastrous policies and advice - provided by Peter Orszag and Company.
Americans need to be vigilant with dangerous "Young Turks" like Peter Orszag and Rahm Emanuel running the Obama White House and the U.S. budget.
It should come as no surprise that the New York Times article by Mark Leibovich fails to mention Emanuel's Israeli roots -- or the fact that his father was a member of the most murderous Zionist terrorist group in Palestine in the 1930s and 40s -- the Irgun. The New York Times is the leading Zionist-controlled newspaper in the United States by virtue of the fact that it has been controlled by the Sulzberger family, founding members of B'nai B'rith (Jewish Freemasons) Lodge No. 1, for more than one hundred years.
Rahm Emanuel is actually named after two Irgun (or LEHI) terrorists: one named Rahamim (Rahm), and the other named Emanuel.
The Times clearly considers this information that it would prefer the reader not know. This is a perfect example how the Zionist-controlled media controls public opinion by omitting important information.
The same controlled media also fails to investigate the evidence of Emanual's involvement with the impeached Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, in the activity that lead to Blagojevich being removed from office. Blagojevich specifically told Larry King that he wants the tapes of his conversations with Rahm Emanuel released. Why aren't they?
The only possible bump on the charm-paved Rahm Road is the ongoing investigation and prosecution of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich for putting Obama’s vacant Senate seat up for the highest bidder. Emanuel has acknowledged conversations with Blagojevich, but the media seems remarkably uninterested in the contents of those wiretapped discussions, willing, it seems, to take the Obama White House’s assurances that all is well. Bush should have been so lucky.
- "Defusing the Rahm Bomb," by Fran Coombs, 29 January 2009
______________________________________________________________________
tommy:
For the life of me...I cannot figure out how FLAG WAIVING PUSSIES AT CIA--NSA--DOD--JCS--FBI all fag around together while ignoring the 3,000 pound pink hook nosed Kike Elephant that has.....DESTROYED AMERICA TO IT'S CORE?
THANKS FOR NOTHING...flag waiving pussies on the right....you let the money changers back into the temple...no?
________________________________________________________________
http://www.bollyn.info/home/articles/polphil/rahm-emanuel-and-barack-obama/
If you appreciate the information found in my articles, please send a donation. My latest article is about Joseph Adam Ereli, the Israeli national and son of a Hagana terrorist in the U.S. State Department. Ereli is Israel's point man in Iraq, where he oversees the application of U.S. policy in the region.
Adam Ereli - A Son of the Hagana in the State Dept.
Written by Christopher Bollyn
Thursday, 20 November 2008
....
JOSEPH ADAM ERELI
When the Iraqi cabinet approved a pact with the United States that will allow American forces to stay in Iraq for three years there was only one American response reported in the press, the words of Joseph Adam Ereli, the Israeli:
This is an important and positive step," said U.S. Embassy spokesman Adam Ereli.
Our Israeli spokesman, Adam Ereli, seems to be running the show in Iraq and Bahrain, where he is the U.S. Ambassador. His State Dept. bio shows that he has held similar positions all over the Middle East and speaks French and Arabic. They obviously chose to leave out Hebrew because it probably wouldn't look good on his resume. With an Israeli father who served in the Hagana, it is most unlikely that Ereli does not speak Ivreet, the Slavic-based language with Hebrew words spoken by the Russian Jews that occupy Palestine.
In April 2007, Joseph A. Ereli was nominated by President Bush to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the State of Bahrain. This guy really thinks he is in a Bond film.
Here is what Ereli's official bio says:
Ambassador Adam J. Ereli arrived in Baghdad 31 May 2008 to serve as the Public Affairs Counselor at the United States Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq from 2008 to 2009.
From 2007 to 2008 he has served as Ambassador to Bahrain. He will return to the post when his tour in Iraq is completed in 2009.
Prior to his appointment as Ambassador to Bahrain, Ereli was Senior Advisor to the Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy for Overseas Communications, based in London. There he oversaw regional communications hubs in Brussels and Dubai, and the Arab Media Outreach Center in London.
Prior to serving in London, Mr. Ereli was Deputy Spokesman of the Department of State from 2003 to 2006. As Deputy Spokesman, he oversaw the Office of Press Relations, Office of Regional Media Outreach, Office of Broadcast Services, the website, the Foreign Press Centers, and the Press Office at USAID. Mr. Ereli served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Doha, Qatar, from 2000 to 2003.
He joined the Foreign Service in 1989 and has served abroad as a Junior Officer in Cairo, Egypt, Program Officer in Damascus, Syria, Cultural Affairs Officer in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Public Affairs Officer in Sanaa, Yemen. In Washington, Mr. Ereli served as Director of the Office of Press and Public Affairs in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and as Director of the Office of Press Relations in the Bureau of Public Affairs.
Mr. Ereli earned a B.A. in History from Yale University in 1982 and an M.A. in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in 1989. Before entering the Foreign Service, he worked as a journalist and human rights activist in Paris, France. He speaks French and Arabic.
Joseph Ereli's biographies do not provide the names of his parents, Eliezer and Ruth Roberta (born White of Chestnut Hill, Mass.) Ereli. His Israeli father, who confirmed to me that he was born in Tel Aviv, came to the United States in October 1949 and again in March 1956. When he flew from Paris to New York in 1949 the diligent purser noted that his name had been Eliezer Kaplan before he became Mr. Ereli.
I spoke with Eliezer at his home in Houston on November 18 and asked him if his name had been Kaplan previously. He confirmed this but said he did not remember when his name had been changed. I asked him if he was related to Eliezer Kaplan, one of the founders of the state of Israel who had raised the necessary funds for the Zionist state. Ereli said he had never heard of Eliezer Kaplan, which is hard to believe. He is probably related.
I asked if he was born in Tel Aviv, which he confirmed, and asked if he had served in the Hagana or the Irgun. He said he had served in the Hagana. When I asked if he was related to Eliezer Kaplan he decided to cut the conversation off.
Finis
Sources and Recommended Reading
Note: Please disregard the notice at the bottom of my articles on Hufschmid's website. He refuses to remove them.
Bollyn, Christopher, "The Zionist Occupation of Iraq Is the War in Iraq," January 10, 2007
Bollyn, Christopher, "The Architecture of Terror: Mapping the Israeli Network Behind 9-11," July 24, 2008
Bollyn, Christopher, "Controlled Press Hides Chertoff's Israeli Roots," March 4, 2005
"Mathieu Amalric to model Bond Villain on Tony Blair," thelondonpaper.com, January 24, 2008
Last Updated ( Friday, 12 December 2008 )
The Israeli Who Runs the Obama White House
Written by Christopher Bollyn
Thursday, 06 November 2008
One of the key players in the Obama administration’s $900 billion economic stimulus package is Obama’s new budget director Peter R. Orszag.
Orszag, 40, is the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the arm of the White House responsible for crafting the federal budget and overseeing the effectiveness of federal programs. He worked closely with Rahm Emanuel in the Clinton administration - when the disastrous NAFTA was passed - and was one of the first Obama appointees to be approved.
”In the coming years, no bureaucrat will be as decisive as Peter Orszag,” Ezra Klein wrote recently in The American Prospect. So, who is Peter Richard Orszag and what kind of decisions will he make with the budget he controls? (Based on his background one would be well advised to prepare for a financial trainwreck.)
Oddly, Orszag’s background has received virtually no attention in the media. At this critical moment, however, it would be foolish to ignore the troubling background of Obama’s budget director, which deserves to be looked at very carefully. Orszag, for example, could start by explaining exactly what happened to the Icelandic economy. Orszag was, after all, the founder and president of the economic consultancy firm which advised the Central Bank of Iceland - before it went bankrupt. How did Icelandic banks become so indebted? Ask Peter Orszag.
Orszag is an economist who served six years in the Clinton administration (1993-8) under Robert E. Rubin, the former treasury secretary who recently resigned from his senior position at the woefully mismanaged and nearly bankrupt Citigroup. The fact that Orszag was a protege of the now disgraced Rubin certainly does not bode well for the Obama administration.
Rubin strongly opposed the regulation of derivatives when such regulation was proposed in 1997. Credit derivatives of mortgage-backed securities were the key reason for the recent failure of a number of large financial institutions, including AIG and Citigroup.
In 1999, Rubin joined Citigroup as a board member and a participant "in strategic managerial and operational matters of the Company.” The Wall Street Journal noted that Citigroup shareholders suffered losses of more than 70 percent since Rubin joined the firm and that he encouraged changes that led the firm to the brink of collapse. In December 2008, investors filed a lawsuit contending that Citigroup executives, including Rubin, sold shares at inflated prices while concealing the firm’s risks.
Orszag, a Jew, served on the president’s Council of Economic Advisers in 1993, under Rubin, when the Israeli Rahm Emanuel, Clinton’s senior adviser, was pushing the disastrous NAFTA legislation through Congress. Prior to joining the Clinton team Orszag was an economic adviser for the Russian Ministry of Finance in Moscow from 1992-93. This was a period of rampant financial criminality during which many Russian mineral assets came under the control of the so-called Jewish oligarchs who became instant billionaires. Most of these oligarchs fled Russia when their crimes were exposed and now live in Britain or Israel, where they obtained citizenship.
Born in Boston on December 16, 1968, Orszag graduated from Princeton University in 1991. He then attended the London School of Economics, where he earned a degree in 1992 and where he obtained his PhD in 1997. The London School of Economics was established by members of the Fabian Society, who believed in advancing socialism through gradual reforms.
The Fabian Society is a British socialist movement, whose purpose is to advance the principles of Social democracy via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary means. The ideology of the Fabians is said to be described in the quote, "Fabianism feeds on Capitalism, but excretes Communism."
In 1998, after serving in the Clinton administration, Orszag co-founded an economic consulting group company with his brother and Joseph Stiglitz called Sebago Associates, where he served as president through 2007. The firm's clients have included the World Bank, the Nordic Council of Ministers, and most notably, the Central Bank of Iceland. The once prosperous economy of Iceland has been devastated by the current economic crisis, which its citizens say was carried out by a gang of financial criminals who followed disastrous policies and advice - provided by Peter Orszag and Company.
Americans need to be vigilant with dangerous "Young Turks" like Peter Orszag and Rahm Emanuel running the Obama White House and the U.S. budget.
It should come as no surprise that the New York Times article by Mark Leibovich fails to mention Emanuel's Israeli roots -- or the fact that his father was a member of the most murderous Zionist terrorist group in Palestine in the 1930s and 40s -- the Irgun. The New York Times is the leading Zionist-controlled newspaper in the United States by virtue of the fact that it has been controlled by the Sulzberger family, founding members of B'nai B'rith (Jewish Freemasons) Lodge No. 1, for more than one hundred years.
Rahm Emanuel is actually named after two Irgun (or LEHI) terrorists: one named Rahamim (Rahm), and the other named Emanuel.
The Times clearly considers this information that it would prefer the reader not know. This is a perfect example how the Zionist-controlled media controls public opinion by omitting important information.
The same controlled media also fails to investigate the evidence of Emanual's involvement with the impeached Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, in the activity that lead to Blagojevich being removed from office. Blagojevich specifically told Larry King that he wants the tapes of his conversations with Rahm Emanuel released. Why aren't they?
The only possible bump on the charm-paved Rahm Road is the ongoing investigation and prosecution of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich for putting Obama’s vacant Senate seat up for the highest bidder. Emanuel has acknowledged conversations with Blagojevich, but the media seems remarkably uninterested in the contents of those wiretapped discussions, willing, it seems, to take the Obama White House’s assurances that all is well. Bush should have been so lucky.
- "Defusing the Rahm Bomb," by Fran Coombs, 29 January 2009
______________________________________________________________________
tommy:
For the life of me...I cannot figure out how FLAG WAIVING PUSSIES AT CIA--NSA--DOD--JCS--FBI all fag around together while ignoring the 3,000 pound pink hook nosed Kike Elephant that has.....DESTROYED AMERICA TO IT'S CORE?
THANKS FOR NOTHING...flag waiving pussies on the right....you let the money changers back into the temple...no?
________________________________________________________________
http://www.bollyn.info/home/articles/polphil/rahm-emanuel-and-barack-obama/
If you appreciate the information found in my articles, please send a donation. My latest article is about Joseph Adam Ereli, the Israeli national and son of a Hagana terrorist in the U.S. State Department. Ereli is Israel's point man in Iraq, where he oversees the application of U.S. policy in the region.
Adam Ereli - A Son of the Hagana in the State Dept.
Written by Christopher Bollyn
Thursday, 20 November 2008
....
JOSEPH ADAM ERELI
When the Iraqi cabinet approved a pact with the United States that will allow American forces to stay in Iraq for three years there was only one American response reported in the press, the words of Joseph Adam Ereli, the Israeli:
This is an important and positive step," said U.S. Embassy spokesman Adam Ereli.
Our Israeli spokesman, Adam Ereli, seems to be running the show in Iraq and Bahrain, where he is the U.S. Ambassador. His State Dept. bio shows that he has held similar positions all over the Middle East and speaks French and Arabic. They obviously chose to leave out Hebrew because it probably wouldn't look good on his resume. With an Israeli father who served in the Hagana, it is most unlikely that Ereli does not speak Ivreet, the Slavic-based language with Hebrew words spoken by the Russian Jews that occupy Palestine.
In April 2007, Joseph A. Ereli was nominated by President Bush to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the State of Bahrain. This guy really thinks he is in a Bond film.
Here is what Ereli's official bio says:
Ambassador Adam J. Ereli arrived in Baghdad 31 May 2008 to serve as the Public Affairs Counselor at the United States Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq from 2008 to 2009.
From 2007 to 2008 he has served as Ambassador to Bahrain. He will return to the post when his tour in Iraq is completed in 2009.
Prior to his appointment as Ambassador to Bahrain, Ereli was Senior Advisor to the Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy for Overseas Communications, based in London. There he oversaw regional communications hubs in Brussels and Dubai, and the Arab Media Outreach Center in London.
Prior to serving in London, Mr. Ereli was Deputy Spokesman of the Department of State from 2003 to 2006. As Deputy Spokesman, he oversaw the Office of Press Relations, Office of Regional Media Outreach, Office of Broadcast Services, the website, the Foreign Press Centers, and the Press Office at USAID. Mr. Ereli served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Doha, Qatar, from 2000 to 2003.
He joined the Foreign Service in 1989 and has served abroad as a Junior Officer in Cairo, Egypt, Program Officer in Damascus, Syria, Cultural Affairs Officer in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Public Affairs Officer in Sanaa, Yemen. In Washington, Mr. Ereli served as Director of the Office of Press and Public Affairs in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and as Director of the Office of Press Relations in the Bureau of Public Affairs.
Mr. Ereli earned a B.A. in History from Yale University in 1982 and an M.A. in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in 1989. Before entering the Foreign Service, he worked as a journalist and human rights activist in Paris, France. He speaks French and Arabic.
Joseph Ereli's biographies do not provide the names of his parents, Eliezer and Ruth Roberta (born White of Chestnut Hill, Mass.) Ereli. His Israeli father, who confirmed to me that he was born in Tel Aviv, came to the United States in October 1949 and again in March 1956. When he flew from Paris to New York in 1949 the diligent purser noted that his name had been Eliezer Kaplan before he became Mr. Ereli.
I spoke with Eliezer at his home in Houston on November 18 and asked him if his name had been Kaplan previously. He confirmed this but said he did not remember when his name had been changed. I asked him if he was related to Eliezer Kaplan, one of the founders of the state of Israel who had raised the necessary funds for the Zionist state. Ereli said he had never heard of Eliezer Kaplan, which is hard to believe. He is probably related.
I asked if he was born in Tel Aviv, which he confirmed, and asked if he had served in the Hagana or the Irgun. He said he had served in the Hagana. When I asked if he was related to Eliezer Kaplan he decided to cut the conversation off.
Finis
Sources and Recommended Reading
Note: Please disregard the notice at the bottom of my articles on Hufschmid's website. He refuses to remove them.
Bollyn, Christopher, "The Zionist Occupation of Iraq Is the War in Iraq," January 10, 2007
Bollyn, Christopher, "The Architecture of Terror: Mapping the Israeli Network Behind 9-11," July 24, 2008
Bollyn, Christopher, "Controlled Press Hides Chertoff's Israeli Roots," March 4, 2005
"Mathieu Amalric to model Bond Villain on Tony Blair," thelondonpaper.com, January 24, 2008
Last Updated ( Friday, 12 December 2008 )
Another reason why GATES--CHENEY has to go: A SECRET GOV does not like WITNESSES....TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS is a fed crime...right Mr Holder?
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/02/gates-opposed-protections-for-national-security-whistleblowers.html
Feb 18, 2009
Gates Opposed Protections for National Security Whistleblowers
Ace reporter R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick of the Washington Post scored a big one with today's story explaining the backstory behind Sen. Susan Collins' (R-ME) nixing of federal whistleblower protections in the stimulus bill. It turns out that last year Defense Secretary Gates, along with other Bush Administration officials, sent Congress "an unusually tough letter" opposing whistleblower protections for national security whistleblowers. The controversy centers around the provision allowing appropriately cleared Members of Congress and congressional staff who are not on the intelligence committees to receive classified information from whistleblowers.
Preserving congressional authority to oversee the Executive Branch--particularly the shrouded national security and intelligence agencies--is not only essential for whistleblowers; it is imperative for the preservation of our government's balance of powers.
Given that both the House and Senate intelligence committees have operated as the lapdogs of the agencies they are charged with overseeing, we need to protect the rights of others in Congress who are properly cleared, so that they can conduct much-needed oversight of the national security apparatus.
-- Danielle Brian
____________________________________
tommy:
MR HOLDER...THE DASCHLE CAMPAIGN MEMO I wrote on my home computer...(that gave FBI AND SD US ATTORNEYS JAMES MCMAHON, MICHELLE TAPKEN, STEVEN MULLINS AND MARTY JACKLEY reasonable suspicion to perform some kind of search) amounted to my attempt at upholding the prohibition on MISPRISON OF A FELONY.
MISPRISON OF A FELONY and CONSPIRACY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS would be some laws to apply to the Cheney White House...no?
DID ANYBODY STOP FBI FROM SEARCHING?
What does MICHELLE TAPKEN have to say?
AS A US CITIZEN AND OFFICER OF THE COURT licensed in Texas...I have a fed criminal duty to "report all felony crimes" under THE MISPRISON OF A FELONY STATUTE...no?
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE TITLE III (fed wiretap law) forced me to "report this info" to somebody...right?
FBI AND DOJ were not talking to a witness named Thomas S. Bean.
So...IF POLITICAL WIRETAPPING OF DASCHLE'S CAMPAIGN (and others linked to me)...IS NOT A CRIME but a "National Secuirty m.o. during the bogus war on terror"...then...uh....it looks like "The GOP Police State has granted themselves criminal immunity" to TAMPER WITH WITNESSES who know too much about Title III felonies?
_______________________________________________________
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/02/congress-needs-to-hear-from-whistleblowers-on-national-security-issues-too.html
Congress Needs to Hear From Whistleblowers on National Security Issues Too!
Today the Washington Post published a letter disagreeing with their attack on the House amendment to protect federal whistleblowers. As we've said before, we think that the Post's concerns about national security whistleblowers were overblown. And while we agree with the letter published today that whistleblowers are key for oversight and accountability, we also wanted to stress how important it is for Congress to have access to classified information outside of the formal channels.
Additionally, we think our letter is important, given Attorney General Eric Holder's answers to Senator Grassley (R-IA) that this access express more concern for "raising separation-of-powers issues" than Congress's oversight role.
Our own letter to the editor was not published in the Post, so we wanted to publish it here:
The Project On Government Oversight was more than a little stunned to read that the Post opposes the whistleblower protections contained within the economic stimulus legislation now under consideration by Congress (Wrong Way to Protect editorial Feb. 2). Contrary to the Post's assertion that it is a pretext to "ram" whistleblower protections into the stimulus bill, in fact the legislation already recognized the urgent need for protecting those who might know about and disclose improper or even illegal handling of these funds by including provisions to protect state and local whistleblowers. We are simply attempting to afford those same protections to federal employees.
The House passed a bipartisan amendment to the stimulus package to protect those federal whistleblowers, including protections for intelligence whistleblowers. However, the provision only protects whistleblowers who disclose classified information to those with proper clearance, including those in the Congress. And what is wrong with that? In fact we need far more whistleblowers bringing information to Congress so that it can provide more serious oversight of the intelligence community -- including its classified budgets and contracts. The Post's suggestion that this may be unconstitutional is simply uninformed.
To strip the House-passed protections from all federal whistleblowers will virtually guarantee this massive spending bill will be rife with waste, fraud and abuse.
-- Danielle Brian
________________________________________________________________
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/17/AR2009021703006.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Obama, Gates at Odds Over New Whistleblower Protections
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 18, 2009; Page A03
...Advocacy groups were cheered when an Obama aide promised the National Whistleblower Center in May 2007 that the candidate supported protecting whistleblowers "under the framework" of the House bill.
The bill passed the House once in 2007 with the support of 102 Republicans and again last month on a bipartisan voice vote attaching it to the economic stimulus legislation. But its key provisions were dropped before the legislation was signed by Obama yesterday, after Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) and other Republicans objected to their inclusion and the White House did not insist on it.
A spokesman for Collins, Kevin Kelley, said she "remains committed to whistleblower protections." But another aide said that she mostly supports adding new protections for federal workers outside the intelligence community, as do other Senate Republicans; including employees at intelligence agencies needs to be "carefully explored," the aide said.
Gates's broadside against the bill last year was joined by then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, then-Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. Provisions allowing judicial review of clearance decisions, Gates and the others wrote, would "interfere with the President's constitutional authority" and "create protections for disgruntled employees whose jobs would not otherwise be secure."
Whistleblower advocates say these views mostly reflect hostility among senior officials to creating new channels for grievances, which could open the door to a loss of control over personnel decisions and to embarrassing public disclosures. They further say that protecting whistleblowers is important at a moment when sharply increased federal spending under the economic stimulus provides opportunities for new abuses.
"This is an issue that every political appointee supports in theory and none can tolerate when the dissent is directed at them," said Tom Devine, legal director of the nonprofit Government Accountability Project, which has lobbied for the bill's passage for a decade. "They don't want to have to defend the cases in court, and they don't want to lose."
Veteran CIA analyst Franz Boening is among many whistleblowers from national security agencies who say they are waiting to see if Obama follows through on his promised support. Boening rattled his supervisors in the 1990s by filing memos questioning what he regarded as the agency's tolerance of human rights abuses by friendly governments in Latin America and elsewhere. But he says his career really soured in 2001, after he wrote internal letters accusing the agency of improper dealings with Vladimir Montesinos, at the time the top security adviser to Peru's president.
Peru later accused Montesinos of numerous crimes, including fraud, money laundering, and drug and arms trafficking. But after Boening, who had worked in the agency's declassification office, made his complaints -- based, he says, on public information -- he was denied promotions and accused of having unauthorized access to secret files.
"I made some tough allegations against the agency and said there should be prosecutions. I've been told by officials that it really got under their skin. I was mistreated and always blacklisted after that," Boening, 53, said in an interview.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said: "It's agency practice to look carefully at any concerns our employees may raise. That's what fairness demands." He added that he could not offer more detailed comments on matters that may be in litigation.
Worries at the top ranks of the intelligence community have centered on a provision in the House bill allowing national security employees to contact a range of lawmakers directly about actions they believe are illegal or corrupt. Supporters say this provides a much-needed check on the community's habitual desire to hide its dirty laundry, an effort that they say has sometimes been joined by the House and Senate intelligence committees, which generally hold hearings in secret.
But high-ranking agency veterans say they recall the immense political turmoil that followed then-Rep. Robert G. Torricelli's public disclosure in 1995 of CIA payments to a Guatemalan colonel accused of murdering an American citizen and the husband of an American citizen -- ties that the New Jersey Democrat, who was not an intelligence committee member, learned of through unofficial channels.
Two CIA officials were fired and eight others were disciplined in ensuing government probes, and a presidential panel concluded that the agency not only broke the law but acted unacceptably on human rights matters. Then-CIA Director John M. Deutch ordered more than 100 informants accused of abuses or criminal acts dropped from the agency's payrolls -- and said no more could be hired without case-by-case reviews.
Deutch's decision was wrenching and controversial, but it governed agency actions for years until his successor, George J. Tenet, quietly overturned it after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow more widespread recruiting of informants with checkered histories. To avert additional discussion of such sensitive relationships, President Bill Clinton -- like his successor -- opposed proposals allowing wider direct reporting of classified information by national security employees to lawmakers.
The House, which has held multiple hearings showcasing whistleblower complaints, sees it differently. Under its bill, whistleblowers would be protected for the first time for tattling to superiors and, under certain circumstances, to members of at least five other committees besides intelligence, including those responsible for armed services and homeland security. Gates complained that this would allow federal workers to decide on their own "to disclose classified information to a broad universe" not entitled to hear it.
Devine responds that the committee members have relevant clearances and "should not be treated as second-class citizens." Opposition to this is, he says, "just an excuse to avoid oversight."
The new bill also broadens the definition of abusive conduct that could be legally disclosed or protested, and allows whistleblower appeals to be heard in any federal circuit, instead of a single designated appellate court where, plaintiffs' attorneys say, only three such cases -- from federal workers outside the national security field -- have prevailed in the past 15 years.
The government would retain its right to respond by invoking a "state secrets" privilege to block a trial, but for the first time it would be forced to brief lawmakers on the complaint and allow an inspector general's classified probe of the allegations.
Feb 18, 2009
Gates Opposed Protections for National Security Whistleblowers
Ace reporter R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick of the Washington Post scored a big one with today's story explaining the backstory behind Sen. Susan Collins' (R-ME) nixing of federal whistleblower protections in the stimulus bill. It turns out that last year Defense Secretary Gates, along with other Bush Administration officials, sent Congress "an unusually tough letter" opposing whistleblower protections for national security whistleblowers. The controversy centers around the provision allowing appropriately cleared Members of Congress and congressional staff who are not on the intelligence committees to receive classified information from whistleblowers.
Preserving congressional authority to oversee the Executive Branch--particularly the shrouded national security and intelligence agencies--is not only essential for whistleblowers; it is imperative for the preservation of our government's balance of powers.
Given that both the House and Senate intelligence committees have operated as the lapdogs of the agencies they are charged with overseeing, we need to protect the rights of others in Congress who are properly cleared, so that they can conduct much-needed oversight of the national security apparatus.
-- Danielle Brian
____________________________________
tommy:
MR HOLDER...THE DASCHLE CAMPAIGN MEMO I wrote on my home computer...(that gave FBI AND SD US ATTORNEYS JAMES MCMAHON, MICHELLE TAPKEN, STEVEN MULLINS AND MARTY JACKLEY reasonable suspicion to perform some kind of search) amounted to my attempt at upholding the prohibition on MISPRISON OF A FELONY.
MISPRISON OF A FELONY and CONSPIRACY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS would be some laws to apply to the Cheney White House...no?
DID ANYBODY STOP FBI FROM SEARCHING?
What does MICHELLE TAPKEN have to say?
AS A US CITIZEN AND OFFICER OF THE COURT licensed in Texas...I have a fed criminal duty to "report all felony crimes" under THE MISPRISON OF A FELONY STATUTE...no?
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE TITLE III (fed wiretap law) forced me to "report this info" to somebody...right?
FBI AND DOJ were not talking to a witness named Thomas S. Bean.
So...IF POLITICAL WIRETAPPING OF DASCHLE'S CAMPAIGN (and others linked to me)...IS NOT A CRIME but a "National Secuirty m.o. during the bogus war on terror"...then...uh....it looks like "The GOP Police State has granted themselves criminal immunity" to TAMPER WITH WITNESSES who know too much about Title III felonies?
_______________________________________________________
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/02/congress-needs-to-hear-from-whistleblowers-on-national-security-issues-too.html
Congress Needs to Hear From Whistleblowers on National Security Issues Too!
Today the Washington Post published a letter disagreeing with their attack on the House amendment to protect federal whistleblowers. As we've said before, we think that the Post's concerns about national security whistleblowers were overblown. And while we agree with the letter published today that whistleblowers are key for oversight and accountability, we also wanted to stress how important it is for Congress to have access to classified information outside of the formal channels.
Additionally, we think our letter is important, given Attorney General Eric Holder's answers to Senator Grassley (R-IA) that this access express more concern for "raising separation-of-powers issues" than Congress's oversight role.
Our own letter to the editor was not published in the Post, so we wanted to publish it here:
The Project On Government Oversight was more than a little stunned to read that the Post opposes the whistleblower protections contained within the economic stimulus legislation now under consideration by Congress (Wrong Way to Protect editorial Feb. 2). Contrary to the Post's assertion that it is a pretext to "ram" whistleblower protections into the stimulus bill, in fact the legislation already recognized the urgent need for protecting those who might know about and disclose improper or even illegal handling of these funds by including provisions to protect state and local whistleblowers. We are simply attempting to afford those same protections to federal employees.
The House passed a bipartisan amendment to the stimulus package to protect those federal whistleblowers, including protections for intelligence whistleblowers. However, the provision only protects whistleblowers who disclose classified information to those with proper clearance, including those in the Congress. And what is wrong with that? In fact we need far more whistleblowers bringing information to Congress so that it can provide more serious oversight of the intelligence community -- including its classified budgets and contracts. The Post's suggestion that this may be unconstitutional is simply uninformed.
To strip the House-passed protections from all federal whistleblowers will virtually guarantee this massive spending bill will be rife with waste, fraud and abuse.
-- Danielle Brian
________________________________________________________________
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/17/AR2009021703006.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Obama, Gates at Odds Over New Whistleblower Protections
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 18, 2009; Page A03
...Advocacy groups were cheered when an Obama aide promised the National Whistleblower Center in May 2007 that the candidate supported protecting whistleblowers "under the framework" of the House bill.
The bill passed the House once in 2007 with the support of 102 Republicans and again last month on a bipartisan voice vote attaching it to the economic stimulus legislation. But its key provisions were dropped before the legislation was signed by Obama yesterday, after Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) and other Republicans objected to their inclusion and the White House did not insist on it.
A spokesman for Collins, Kevin Kelley, said she "remains committed to whistleblower protections." But another aide said that she mostly supports adding new protections for federal workers outside the intelligence community, as do other Senate Republicans; including employees at intelligence agencies needs to be "carefully explored," the aide said.
Gates's broadside against the bill last year was joined by then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, then-Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. Provisions allowing judicial review of clearance decisions, Gates and the others wrote, would "interfere with the President's constitutional authority" and "create protections for disgruntled employees whose jobs would not otherwise be secure."
Whistleblower advocates say these views mostly reflect hostility among senior officials to creating new channels for grievances, which could open the door to a loss of control over personnel decisions and to embarrassing public disclosures. They further say that protecting whistleblowers is important at a moment when sharply increased federal spending under the economic stimulus provides opportunities for new abuses.
"This is an issue that every political appointee supports in theory and none can tolerate when the dissent is directed at them," said Tom Devine, legal director of the nonprofit Government Accountability Project, which has lobbied for the bill's passage for a decade. "They don't want to have to defend the cases in court, and they don't want to lose."
Veteran CIA analyst Franz Boening is among many whistleblowers from national security agencies who say they are waiting to see if Obama follows through on his promised support. Boening rattled his supervisors in the 1990s by filing memos questioning what he regarded as the agency's tolerance of human rights abuses by friendly governments in Latin America and elsewhere. But he says his career really soured in 2001, after he wrote internal letters accusing the agency of improper dealings with Vladimir Montesinos, at the time the top security adviser to Peru's president.
Peru later accused Montesinos of numerous crimes, including fraud, money laundering, and drug and arms trafficking. But after Boening, who had worked in the agency's declassification office, made his complaints -- based, he says, on public information -- he was denied promotions and accused of having unauthorized access to secret files.
"I made some tough allegations against the agency and said there should be prosecutions. I've been told by officials that it really got under their skin. I was mistreated and always blacklisted after that," Boening, 53, said in an interview.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said: "It's agency practice to look carefully at any concerns our employees may raise. That's what fairness demands." He added that he could not offer more detailed comments on matters that may be in litigation.
Worries at the top ranks of the intelligence community have centered on a provision in the House bill allowing national security employees to contact a range of lawmakers directly about actions they believe are illegal or corrupt. Supporters say this provides a much-needed check on the community's habitual desire to hide its dirty laundry, an effort that they say has sometimes been joined by the House and Senate intelligence committees, which generally hold hearings in secret.
But high-ranking agency veterans say they recall the immense political turmoil that followed then-Rep. Robert G. Torricelli's public disclosure in 1995 of CIA payments to a Guatemalan colonel accused of murdering an American citizen and the husband of an American citizen -- ties that the New Jersey Democrat, who was not an intelligence committee member, learned of through unofficial channels.
Two CIA officials were fired and eight others were disciplined in ensuing government probes, and a presidential panel concluded that the agency not only broke the law but acted unacceptably on human rights matters. Then-CIA Director John M. Deutch ordered more than 100 informants accused of abuses or criminal acts dropped from the agency's payrolls -- and said no more could be hired without case-by-case reviews.
Deutch's decision was wrenching and controversial, but it governed agency actions for years until his successor, George J. Tenet, quietly overturned it after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow more widespread recruiting of informants with checkered histories. To avert additional discussion of such sensitive relationships, President Bill Clinton -- like his successor -- opposed proposals allowing wider direct reporting of classified information by national security employees to lawmakers.
The House, which has held multiple hearings showcasing whistleblower complaints, sees it differently. Under its bill, whistleblowers would be protected for the first time for tattling to superiors and, under certain circumstances, to members of at least five other committees besides intelligence, including those responsible for armed services and homeland security. Gates complained that this would allow federal workers to decide on their own "to disclose classified information to a broad universe" not entitled to hear it.
Devine responds that the committee members have relevant clearances and "should not be treated as second-class citizens." Opposition to this is, he says, "just an excuse to avoid oversight."
The new bill also broadens the definition of abusive conduct that could be legally disclosed or protested, and allows whistleblower appeals to be heard in any federal circuit, instead of a single designated appellate court where, plaintiffs' attorneys say, only three such cases -- from federal workers outside the national security field -- have prevailed in the past 15 years.
The government would retain its right to respond by invoking a "state secrets" privilege to block a trial, but for the first time it would be forced to brief lawmakers on the complaint and allow an inspector general's classified probe of the allegations.
NO CHANGE, NO GUTS, NO OVERSIGHT....NO HOPE FOR AMERICA
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/18/ashcroft-obama-bush/
Ashcroft: Only difference between Bush and Obama is how they spell their names.»
In a new article about how the Obama administration will confront the legal challenges of Bush’s war on terror, former Attorney General John Ashcroft defends the continued detention of a terror suspect, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, on a naval brig in South Carolina. Al-Marri has been held as an “enemy combatant” for more than seven years, though the government has yet to charge him with a crime. Ashcroft told the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer that the only difference between Obama and Bush on detainee policy will likely be how they spell their names:
John Ashcroft, who was Attorney General when Marri was designated an enemy combatant, makes no…apologies. Interviewed just before the Inauguration, he defended what he described as a “sound decision” to “maximize the national interest,” and predicted that, in the end, President Obama’s approach to handling terror suspects would closely mirror his own: “How will he be different? The main difference is going to be that he spells his name ‘O-b-a-m-a,’ not ‘B-u-s-h.’”
In December, Dick Cheney predicted that Obama would keep the Guantanamo detention facility open. When Rush Limbaugh asked whether Gitmo is something the Obama administration is “going to be appreciative of once they get there and see it,” Cheney replied, “I think so.”
___________________________
TOMMY:
Everyone on the inside...wonders if FBI'S OPERATION SLAMMER mind control technology is used for POLITICAL REPRESSION--COERCION--EXTORTION.
Mind Control over the PREZ AND WITNESSES....is a great way for DICK CHENEY'S MAFIA CRIME CONTROL GROUP to stay in power, regardless of who wins...right?
CHENEY is still running the Government into the ground?
How come DEMOCRATS ARE SO WEAK AND CORRUPT AND WORTHLESS?
Are they controlled?
Ashcroft: Only difference between Bush and Obama is how they spell their names.»
In a new article about how the Obama administration will confront the legal challenges of Bush’s war on terror, former Attorney General John Ashcroft defends the continued detention of a terror suspect, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, on a naval brig in South Carolina. Al-Marri has been held as an “enemy combatant” for more than seven years, though the government has yet to charge him with a crime. Ashcroft told the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer that the only difference between Obama and Bush on detainee policy will likely be how they spell their names:
John Ashcroft, who was Attorney General when Marri was designated an enemy combatant, makes no…apologies. Interviewed just before the Inauguration, he defended what he described as a “sound decision” to “maximize the national interest,” and predicted that, in the end, President Obama’s approach to handling terror suspects would closely mirror his own: “How will he be different? The main difference is going to be that he spells his name ‘O-b-a-m-a,’ not ‘B-u-s-h.’”
In December, Dick Cheney predicted that Obama would keep the Guantanamo detention facility open. When Rush Limbaugh asked whether Gitmo is something the Obama administration is “going to be appreciative of once they get there and see it,” Cheney replied, “I think so.”
___________________________
TOMMY:
Everyone on the inside...wonders if FBI'S OPERATION SLAMMER mind control technology is used for POLITICAL REPRESSION--COERCION--EXTORTION.
Mind Control over the PREZ AND WITNESSES....is a great way for DICK CHENEY'S MAFIA CRIME CONTROL GROUP to stay in power, regardless of who wins...right?
CHENEY is still running the Government into the ground?
How come DEMOCRATS ARE SO WEAK AND CORRUPT AND WORTHLESS?
Are they controlled?
Latest smoke and mirrors on DOJ politics under DARTH CHENEY: DOJ under Holder conveniently avoids SOUTH DAKOTA FACTS?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/_at_least_eleven_bush.php#more
TPMmuckraker's Complete List of Bush-Era DOJ Stonewallers
By Murray Waas - February 18, 2009, 11:41AM
At least nine Bush administration officials refused to cooperate with various Justice Department investigations during the final days of the Bush presidency, according to public records and interviews with federal law enforcement officials and many of the officials and their attorneys. In addition, two U.S. senators, a congresswoman, and the chief of staff to one of them, also refused to cooperate with the same investigations.
In large part because of that noncooperation, Justice Department officials sought criminal prosecutors in at least two cases so far to take over their investigations so that they can compel the testimony of many of those officials to testify through the use of a federal grand jury.
With the stakes now escalating for both sides -- the possibility of grand jury subpoenas for recalcitrant witnesses and the specter of senior government officials invoking their Fifth Amendment right to self-incrimination -- it remains unclear whether and how many of them will continue to defy investigators.
In one instance, an attorney for former Bush White House chief political strategist Karl Rove recently told TPMmuckraker that even though Rove had refused to cooperate with an earlier Justice Department inquiry into the firings by the Bush administration of nine U.S. attorneys, he would now fully cooperate with a federal grand jury that has been empanelled to hear evidence in the case. But most of the other former senior White House officials, as well as members of Congress and their staffs, declined to say for this article whether they have or will cooperate with the various federal criminal investigations.
Previously, two Justice Department watchdog offices, the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility conducted investigations of the firings of the U.S. attorneys and the politicization by the Bush administration of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. But those two offices do not have the power to compel the testimony of witnesses outside the department itself or to initiate criminal prosecutions. The Inspector General and OPR successfully sought the naming of a criminal prosecutor to take over their probes.
In a report that the Inspector General and OPR made public last September detailing the findings of their investigation of the prosecutor firings, they asserted that their investigation was severely "hampered... because key witnesses declined to cooperate with our investigation."
In regard to the investigation of the politicization of the Civil Rights Division, investigators sought a criminal investigation in part because four Bush administration appointees refused to cooperate with their initial probe. Two other investigations by the Inspector General and OPR of the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program are also currently underway. It is unclear in those instances whether a criminal prosecutor might eventually take over those investigations as well.
In the case of the firings of the U.S. attorneys, Nora Dannehy, the acting U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, who took over the investigation from the Inspector General and OPR, recently empanelled a federal grand jury in Washington to hear evidence in the matter.
As TPMmuckraker recently disclosed, the federal grand jury probing the firings of nine U.S. attorneys is currently zeroing in on the role played by recently retired Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.H.) and former senior Bush White House officials in the firing of David Iglesias, a former U.S. attorney from New Mexico, according to legal sources familiar with the inquiry.
Last week, the Associated Press confirmed that story, reporting that the federal grand jury had subpoenaed records from Domenici and that Dannehy is also about to interview former Rove aide Scott Jennings, whose lawyer said he is cooperating to the "best of his ability." Domenici's attorney, K. Lee Blalock, after originally refusing to comment, and then suggesting to the New Mexico media that the TPMmuckraker report was incorrect, confirmed that the records of his client had in fact been subpoenaed. He also told the Santa Fe New Mexican earlier this month: "The investigation exists, but it is not focused on Senator Domenici to the exclusion of all others."
But despite the fact that Domenici has already been severely criticized by two internal Justice Department watchdog agencies for refusing to answer questions from the Inspector General and OPR, Blalack is refusing to say whether he will cooperate with prosecutors conducting the current federal grand jury probe. The subpoena of Domenici's records suggests that Domenici may not have voluntarily wanted to turn them over to authorities. Blalack declined to comment regarding this.
While anyone under criminal investigation has the constitutional right to refuse to testify, elected officials ordinarily do not invoke that right because of the stigma and political damage to their careers if they do so. Often, an elected official will only defy a federal grand jury if his or his attorney believes it can place their client at greater legal risk, or if they are believed to be a subject or target of investigators.
Domenici has not been named as either a subject or target of Dannehy's grand jury probe. But in seeking the appointment of a criminal prosecutor to take over their investigation in the first place, the Inspector General and OPR cited Domenici's conduct and his refusal to cooperate with them as a major reason they wanted a criminal prosecutor with subpoena and prosecutorial powers to investigate. Domenici retired in January after 36 years in the Senate in early January. In that he no longer has to run for office, there is less pressure on him to now testify.
But some believe that public officials who refuse to cooperate with federal investigations should be condemned.
Melanie Sloan, the executive director of the progressive Washington D.C.-based advocacy group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, said in an interview of the prospect that Domenic might not cooperate with the criminal investigation: "Pleading the 5th Amendment to a federal investigation marks an ignominious end to Mr. Domenici's Senate career. It suggests the Senator knowingly violated the laws he swore to uphold when he contacted the New Mexico U.S. Attorney about a pending criminal matter."
Solomon L. Wisenberg, a former federal prosecutor and a deputy independent counsel in the Whitewater and Clinton-Lewinsky matters, noted that some Bush administration officials cited executive privilege while non-cooperating with the Inspector General and OPR probe of the firings of U.S. attorneys. That will be more difficult to do, he said, now that a criminal investigation is underway: "It is extremely difficult to claim executive privilege when there is a federal criminal investigation going on," he said, "As a practical matter; a grand jury investigation trumps executive privilege. It has long been decided through the case law from Watergate and Whitewater that executive privilege is always weakest in the context of a federal grand jury investigation."
People not wanting to cooperate with criminal investigators or not wanting to testify to a federal grand jury still have the right not to, Wisenberg pointed out, but they won't be able to cite executive privilege any longer. "If I was representing some of these people," says Wisenberg, now a criminal defense attorney, "I might advise them not to cooperate without a grant of immunity. Depending on whether they had exposure, I might counsel them to take the Fifth Amendment."
In a report made public about the U.S. firings last Sept. about the firings, the Inspector General and OPR said that Domenic's then chief of staff, Steve Bell, also played a crucial role in having Iglesias fired. The report said that the investigation was severely "hindered" not only because Domenici refused to cooperate with investigators, but also because Bell declined to do so as well.
Michael Madigan, an attorney representing Domenici's former chief of staff, Steve Bell, did not respond to several telephone and email requests for a comment as to whether Bell will now cooperate with the recently empanelled federal grand jury.
Former Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), was also questioned by the Inspector General and OPR about her efforts to have Iglesias fired as U.S. attorney. Unlike Domenic and Bell, Wilson for the most part cooperated with their effort. But there were some questions that she refused to answer from the investigators, drawing criticism from them in their final report.
Contacted at her home in New Mexico, Wilson told me she did not want to comment about whether she would now answer all questions posed to her by Dannehy or a federal grand jury because the grand jury was in an active stage.
Justice Department investigators also concluded that another U.S. Attorney, Todd Graves, of Kansas City, Missouri, was fired because of complaints made about Graves to the White House and Justice Department by a senior aide to Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)
Like Domenici, Bond refused to be interviewed by investigators. The Inspector General and OPR wrote in their report about the U.S. attorney firings: "We asked Senator Bond for an interview regarding the circumstances surrounding Graves's removal.... In a letter responding to our request, Senator Bond declined to be interviewed."
A spokesman for Bond, Charles Chamberlayne, declined to comment as to whether Bond would cooperate with the federal grand jury investigation of the firings.
Besides the members of Congress, Justice's Inspector General and OPR said that their investigation was severely hampered because of the refusal of numerous Bush White House officials involved in the firings to cooperate with their investigation.
Among those named in the report who refused to cooperate with investigators, the report said, were Former White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, Deputy White House Counsel William Kelley, and Associate White House Counsel Richard D. Klingler.
So will the four former Bush White House officials now cooperate with Dannehy or testify before the federal grand jury if subpoenaed?
In the case of Rove, his attorney, Robert Luskin, recently told TPMmuckraker that his client will cooperate with the federal criminal investigation underway: "I can say that he would cooperate with the Dannehy investigation if asked," Luskin told me. Luskin said that Rove had not cooperated with the earlier probe by the Inspector General and OPR because he was instructed by the Bush White House counsel's office not to do so.
Former White House counsel Harriett Miers declined to comment for this article as to whether she would cooperate with the criminal inquiry into the firings of the U.S. attorneys.
In a brief telephone conversation, Klingler, now an attorney in private practice, also declined to say whether he will cooperate with the federal criminal inquiry: "It is not a productive use of your time or mine...," he said, before hanging up mid-sentence. Klingler was the Bush White House official most personally involved in Graves' firing, according to the Inspector General and OPR report on the firings. Because Sen. Bond and Klingler both declined to answer questions from investigators, they were unable to get to the bottom of why Graves was fired.
Kelley also declined to say whether or not he will cooperate with the federal grand jury into the prosecutor firings. Kelley's testimony is important to any investigation of the firings of the U.S. attorneys because of his role in the firing of Iglesias.
On the very day of Iglesias' firing, for example, Kelley emailed then-Attorney General Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to report: "Domenici's COS [chief of staff] is happy as a clam."
Another investigation by the Justice Department's Inspector General has focused on misconduct by J. Robert Flores, the Bush administration's former administrator of the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Although little known outside the Justice Department, the OJJDP doles out more than a quarter of a billion in federal grants each year to decrease the number of juveniles in dangerous facilities
TPMmuckraker's Complete List of Bush-Era DOJ Stonewallers
By Murray Waas - February 18, 2009, 11:41AM
At least nine Bush administration officials refused to cooperate with various Justice Department investigations during the final days of the Bush presidency, according to public records and interviews with federal law enforcement officials and many of the officials and their attorneys. In addition, two U.S. senators, a congresswoman, and the chief of staff to one of them, also refused to cooperate with the same investigations.
In large part because of that noncooperation, Justice Department officials sought criminal prosecutors in at least two cases so far to take over their investigations so that they can compel the testimony of many of those officials to testify through the use of a federal grand jury.
With the stakes now escalating for both sides -- the possibility of grand jury subpoenas for recalcitrant witnesses and the specter of senior government officials invoking their Fifth Amendment right to self-incrimination -- it remains unclear whether and how many of them will continue to defy investigators.
In one instance, an attorney for former Bush White House chief political strategist Karl Rove recently told TPMmuckraker that even though Rove had refused to cooperate with an earlier Justice Department inquiry into the firings by the Bush administration of nine U.S. attorneys, he would now fully cooperate with a federal grand jury that has been empanelled to hear evidence in the case. But most of the other former senior White House officials, as well as members of Congress and their staffs, declined to say for this article whether they have or will cooperate with the various federal criminal investigations.
Previously, two Justice Department watchdog offices, the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility conducted investigations of the firings of the U.S. attorneys and the politicization by the Bush administration of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. But those two offices do not have the power to compel the testimony of witnesses outside the department itself or to initiate criminal prosecutions. The Inspector General and OPR successfully sought the naming of a criminal prosecutor to take over their probes.
In a report that the Inspector General and OPR made public last September detailing the findings of their investigation of the prosecutor firings, they asserted that their investigation was severely "hampered... because key witnesses declined to cooperate with our investigation."
In regard to the investigation of the politicization of the Civil Rights Division, investigators sought a criminal investigation in part because four Bush administration appointees refused to cooperate with their initial probe. Two other investigations by the Inspector General and OPR of the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program are also currently underway. It is unclear in those instances whether a criminal prosecutor might eventually take over those investigations as well.
In the case of the firings of the U.S. attorneys, Nora Dannehy, the acting U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, who took over the investigation from the Inspector General and OPR, recently empanelled a federal grand jury in Washington to hear evidence in the matter.
As TPMmuckraker recently disclosed, the federal grand jury probing the firings of nine U.S. attorneys is currently zeroing in on the role played by recently retired Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.H.) and former senior Bush White House officials in the firing of David Iglesias, a former U.S. attorney from New Mexico, according to legal sources familiar with the inquiry.
Last week, the Associated Press confirmed that story, reporting that the federal grand jury had subpoenaed records from Domenici and that Dannehy is also about to interview former Rove aide Scott Jennings, whose lawyer said he is cooperating to the "best of his ability." Domenici's attorney, K. Lee Blalock, after originally refusing to comment, and then suggesting to the New Mexico media that the TPMmuckraker report was incorrect, confirmed that the records of his client had in fact been subpoenaed. He also told the Santa Fe New Mexican earlier this month: "The investigation exists, but it is not focused on Senator Domenici to the exclusion of all others."
But despite the fact that Domenici has already been severely criticized by two internal Justice Department watchdog agencies for refusing to answer questions from the Inspector General and OPR, Blalack is refusing to say whether he will cooperate with prosecutors conducting the current federal grand jury probe. The subpoena of Domenici's records suggests that Domenici may not have voluntarily wanted to turn them over to authorities. Blalack declined to comment regarding this.
While anyone under criminal investigation has the constitutional right to refuse to testify, elected officials ordinarily do not invoke that right because of the stigma and political damage to their careers if they do so. Often, an elected official will only defy a federal grand jury if his or his attorney believes it can place their client at greater legal risk, or if they are believed to be a subject or target of investigators.
Domenici has not been named as either a subject or target of Dannehy's grand jury probe. But in seeking the appointment of a criminal prosecutor to take over their investigation in the first place, the Inspector General and OPR cited Domenici's conduct and his refusal to cooperate with them as a major reason they wanted a criminal prosecutor with subpoena and prosecutorial powers to investigate. Domenici retired in January after 36 years in the Senate in early January. In that he no longer has to run for office, there is less pressure on him to now testify.
But some believe that public officials who refuse to cooperate with federal investigations should be condemned.
Melanie Sloan, the executive director of the progressive Washington D.C.-based advocacy group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, said in an interview of the prospect that Domenic might not cooperate with the criminal investigation: "Pleading the 5th Amendment to a federal investigation marks an ignominious end to Mr. Domenici's Senate career. It suggests the Senator knowingly violated the laws he swore to uphold when he contacted the New Mexico U.S. Attorney about a pending criminal matter."
Solomon L. Wisenberg, a former federal prosecutor and a deputy independent counsel in the Whitewater and Clinton-Lewinsky matters, noted that some Bush administration officials cited executive privilege while non-cooperating with the Inspector General and OPR probe of the firings of U.S. attorneys. That will be more difficult to do, he said, now that a criminal investigation is underway: "It is extremely difficult to claim executive privilege when there is a federal criminal investigation going on," he said, "As a practical matter; a grand jury investigation trumps executive privilege. It has long been decided through the case law from Watergate and Whitewater that executive privilege is always weakest in the context of a federal grand jury investigation."
People not wanting to cooperate with criminal investigators or not wanting to testify to a federal grand jury still have the right not to, Wisenberg pointed out, but they won't be able to cite executive privilege any longer. "If I was representing some of these people," says Wisenberg, now a criminal defense attorney, "I might advise them not to cooperate without a grant of immunity. Depending on whether they had exposure, I might counsel them to take the Fifth Amendment."
In a report made public about the U.S. firings last Sept. about the firings, the Inspector General and OPR said that Domenic's then chief of staff, Steve Bell, also played a crucial role in having Iglesias fired. The report said that the investigation was severely "hindered" not only because Domenici refused to cooperate with investigators, but also because Bell declined to do so as well.
Michael Madigan, an attorney representing Domenici's former chief of staff, Steve Bell, did not respond to several telephone and email requests for a comment as to whether Bell will now cooperate with the recently empanelled federal grand jury.
Former Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), was also questioned by the Inspector General and OPR about her efforts to have Iglesias fired as U.S. attorney. Unlike Domenic and Bell, Wilson for the most part cooperated with their effort. But there were some questions that she refused to answer from the investigators, drawing criticism from them in their final report.
Contacted at her home in New Mexico, Wilson told me she did not want to comment about whether she would now answer all questions posed to her by Dannehy or a federal grand jury because the grand jury was in an active stage.
Justice Department investigators also concluded that another U.S. Attorney, Todd Graves, of Kansas City, Missouri, was fired because of complaints made about Graves to the White House and Justice Department by a senior aide to Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)
Like Domenici, Bond refused to be interviewed by investigators. The Inspector General and OPR wrote in their report about the U.S. attorney firings: "We asked Senator Bond for an interview regarding the circumstances surrounding Graves's removal.... In a letter responding to our request, Senator Bond declined to be interviewed."
A spokesman for Bond, Charles Chamberlayne, declined to comment as to whether Bond would cooperate with the federal grand jury investigation of the firings.
Besides the members of Congress, Justice's Inspector General and OPR said that their investigation was severely hampered because of the refusal of numerous Bush White House officials involved in the firings to cooperate with their investigation.
Among those named in the report who refused to cooperate with investigators, the report said, were Former White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, Deputy White House Counsel William Kelley, and Associate White House Counsel Richard D. Klingler.
So will the four former Bush White House officials now cooperate with Dannehy or testify before the federal grand jury if subpoenaed?
In the case of Rove, his attorney, Robert Luskin, recently told TPMmuckraker that his client will cooperate with the federal criminal investigation underway: "I can say that he would cooperate with the Dannehy investigation if asked," Luskin told me. Luskin said that Rove had not cooperated with the earlier probe by the Inspector General and OPR because he was instructed by the Bush White House counsel's office not to do so.
Former White House counsel Harriett Miers declined to comment for this article as to whether she would cooperate with the criminal inquiry into the firings of the U.S. attorneys.
In a brief telephone conversation, Klingler, now an attorney in private practice, also declined to say whether he will cooperate with the federal criminal inquiry: "It is not a productive use of your time or mine...," he said, before hanging up mid-sentence. Klingler was the Bush White House official most personally involved in Graves' firing, according to the Inspector General and OPR report on the firings. Because Sen. Bond and Klingler both declined to answer questions from investigators, they were unable to get to the bottom of why Graves was fired.
Kelley also declined to say whether or not he will cooperate with the federal grand jury into the prosecutor firings. Kelley's testimony is important to any investigation of the firings of the U.S. attorneys because of his role in the firing of Iglesias.
On the very day of Iglesias' firing, for example, Kelley emailed then-Attorney General Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to report: "Domenici's COS [chief of staff] is happy as a clam."
Another investigation by the Justice Department's Inspector General has focused on misconduct by J. Robert Flores, the Bush administration's former administrator of the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Although little known outside the Justice Department, the OJJDP doles out more than a quarter of a billion in federal grants each year to decrease the number of juveniles in dangerous facilities