It seems as though there were some proceedings that postponed the hearing. Mayor Weaver was dismissed as a single defendant and that originally defeated the case.
Ms. Henderson was hired by the Emergency Manager. Basically, she worked for then Governor Snyder.
I don't know why this hasn't been settled beyond a civil suit. How did
Ms. Henderson know about the money transfer? It seems to me a record of the deposit coming from the city to Mayor Weaver would be easy to validate. I am sure Mayor Weaver receives a salary and expenses, but, anything out of the ordinary would have shown up. I would be surprised if Mayor Weaver participated in offshoring.
I think it is a strange lawsuit. There is no criminal aspect to it. if Ms. Henderson is found to be correct, then she was never taken seriously by law enforcement.
This is a very upsetting lawsuit.
Regardless, this does not change the reality of the Flint nightmare.
May 1, 2019
By Ron Fonger
Flint - Former Flint City Administrator Natasha Henderson’s lawsuit (click here) against the city she once helped govern is expected to begin Wednesday, May 1, in federal court in Detroit.
Henderson, who filed a Whistleblower Protection Act lawsuit against the city, claims she was fired after alleging Mayor Karen Weaver routed donations given to help the city with its water crisis to a personal account rather than a fund managed by the Community Foundation of Greater Flint.
Weaver, who has denied that claim, was dismissed as an individual defendant in the case in February by U.S. District Judge Sean F. Cox.
“We are relieved that Ms. Henderson will finally get her day in court,” said Sarah Riley Howard, an attorney representing the former city administrator in the lawsuit. “We’re looking forward to a jury hearing the evidence in this case...”
...She (Henderson) remained in her position after Weaver was elected in November 2015 but was fired by the mayor in February 2016.
The two women disagree on the reasons for the firing.
Weaver has testified that Henderson was fired for not having informed her of outbreaks of Legionnaires’ during the Flint water crisis until February 2016 --- an allegation the city administrator has denied.
Henderson’s lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice in August 2017, but the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it in September 2018, ruling the case could move forward as a whistleblower case.
Friday, May 03, 2019
Within the Executive Branch, these investigatory efforts ultimately led to the May 2017
appointment of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III. The order appointing the Special Counsel
authorized him to investigate "the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016
presidential election," including any links or coordination between the Russian government and
individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.
Robert Mueller and the Special Council had ORDERS to conduct an investigation EXACTLY in the way it was conducted. They did nothing wrong. There was no indication it was political.
Because "the Trump Campaign" is a political organization, it doesn't mean the investigation was political in nature. Political organizations can break the law. The law is what matters. Was there bias because of a couple of agents that were having a love affair? No, because when Robert Mueller heard of the nonsense between these two people they were dismissed from the investigation. There is nothing more to know about it. As a matter of fact, the Special Council probably read through the materials submitted by those two people and made sure everything was sound. Robert Mueller would not allow biased information to continue to be part of the record. If the evidence was sound, he sure won't throw it out. This was about the country, Robert Mueller lived his life carrying the importance of American sovereignty in all his work. He knew what he was doing.
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
In other words, the Russian government made it possible for Trump to win the 2016 elections due to their interference. Trump was their preferred candidate. Russia worked with every aspect they could to put Trump in the White House. We know that is true. The president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, openly stated in the closing months of the election that if Hillary Clinton was elected there would be a nuclear war, but, if Trump was elected there would be no nuclear war.
GOT THAT?
The president of Russia declared nuclear war on the USA should Hillary Clinton be elected president.
Vladimir Putin threatened the American people before they voted with nuclear war to benefit his priority in placing Trump into office.
Donald Trump did not put those words into Putin's mouth or hold a gun to his head to achieve that end. However, it was obvious to the American people and to Trump and his campaign that Russia was involved in compromising the elections. I don't think Americans made the connection that their social media was being manipulated by agents of Russia. But, it was known that Putin wanted Trump in office.
Donald Trump did not denounce Russia's statements or influence. Now, the USA would have a compromised president in the White House by a grateful Trump and that was later noted when he fired James Comey and brought Russian leadership into the Oval Office to provide highly classified information to them. Trump was not demanding Vladimir Putin to leave the USA alone, quite the contrary.
Was there a conspiracy that can be prosecuted? There was no direct link between Russia's work to undermine the 2016 elections and plans made by the Trump Campaign or Trump. But, BOTH PARTIES UNDERSTOOD EACH OTHER AND THEIR COMMON INTERESTS. Why would Russia compromise Trump legally if they wanted a puppet?
***
There are three stars in this part of the introduction that separates SUBJECTS from each other. The top part is about findings. The bottom part is about evidence.
Below we describe the evidentiary considerations underpinning statements about the results of our investigation and the Special Counsel's charging decisions, and we then provide an overview of the two volumes of our report.
The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
Robert Mueller did not bring charges forward. I hope that is clearly understood. It is not to say there weren't members of the Special Council engaged in subsequent prosecutions. They did the work. They knew the case(s). They were professionals that could carry out a presentation of evidence and prosecution, BUT, the charging agency was the DOJ.
In this particular instance, Rod Rosenstein would receive the findings of the Special Council. With the evidence staring him in the face, the Assistant Attorney General would authorize the indictments. Carrying out the indictments fell back to the Special Council and why Robert Mueller had to pass on the Grand Juries to others to finish the Special Council work when they were closed out by Barr.
To my way of thinking CONSISTENCY in prosecution through Grand Juries is best pursued by the people most knowledgable of the investigation. That is why with continued Grand Juries involved, it makes no sense to me that Robert Mueller and the Special Council isn't concluding the work. That could also be selfish of me as well. Robert Mueller and his Special Council have lives. They would do what is asked of them to a conclusion. There is a possibility there were personal reasons to close out the Special Council and return to them to their private lives. If that is the case, I wish them all well. But, occurrences with them since the report was handed to Barr and the fact this looks like an incomplete document really raises issues about the report.
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
The Special Council never used the idea of collusion. With Trump ranting and raving about "No Collusion" indicates he never bothered to read the report, not even the introduction of Volume I. The word collusion in the vapors of Trump Speak is political and continues to be political. It is not a legal finding.
In examining the evidence before the Special Council the word used was coordinate or coordinated. The legal definition of the word(s) is established by the Special Council to be an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.
The word collusion has no legal standing in this report.
The other word used in the report is collude. It was not the language of the charging document of the Special Council. This language was defined as understood between the Special Counsel and the Assistant Attorney General in some communications. The Special Council noted it was used in the public realm, but, was not a legal term or statute. That might seem petty to many, but, it isn't. The language of any document has to be understood without any misunderstandings and why DEFINING words are important. There was a vocabulary clarified between the two entities. When dealing with the law, it means if misunderstandings took place there could be trouble for those being indicted. So the language used by the Special Counsel is very important and should not be dismissed.
***
Three more stars for the same reason.
The report on our investigation consists of two volumes: Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Section IV describes links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions.
Volume II addresses the President's actions towards the FBI's investigation into Russia' s interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the Special Counsel' s investigation. Volume II separately states its framework and the considerations that guided that investigation.
This concludes the Introduction of Volume I. It simply states the way the report is organized and somewhat why it is organized into two volumes.
This is a real treat. The investigation of the Special Council is before us all and it will provide incredible insight to the methods of Russian agencies and agents. It will also provide an insight into USA intelligence and how dear the USA is treated. This is special.
I will continue with more of Volume I later.
Thank you for your interest.
Robert Mueller and the Special Council had ORDERS to conduct an investigation EXACTLY in the way it was conducted. They did nothing wrong. There was no indication it was political.
Because "the Trump Campaign" is a political organization, it doesn't mean the investigation was political in nature. Political organizations can break the law. The law is what matters. Was there bias because of a couple of agents that were having a love affair? No, because when Robert Mueller heard of the nonsense between these two people they were dismissed from the investigation. There is nothing more to know about it. As a matter of fact, the Special Council probably read through the materials submitted by those two people and made sure everything was sound. Robert Mueller would not allow biased information to continue to be part of the record. If the evidence was sound, he sure won't throw it out. This was about the country, Robert Mueller lived his life carrying the importance of American sovereignty in all his work. He knew what he was doing.
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
In other words, the Russian government made it possible for Trump to win the 2016 elections due to their interference. Trump was their preferred candidate. Russia worked with every aspect they could to put Trump in the White House. We know that is true. The president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, openly stated in the closing months of the election that if Hillary Clinton was elected there would be a nuclear war, but, if Trump was elected there would be no nuclear war.
GOT THAT?
The president of Russia declared nuclear war on the USA should Hillary Clinton be elected president.
Vladimir Putin threatened the American people before they voted with nuclear war to benefit his priority in placing Trump into office.
Donald Trump did not put those words into Putin's mouth or hold a gun to his head to achieve that end. However, it was obvious to the American people and to Trump and his campaign that Russia was involved in compromising the elections. I don't think Americans made the connection that their social media was being manipulated by agents of Russia. But, it was known that Putin wanted Trump in office.
Donald Trump did not denounce Russia's statements or influence. Now, the USA would have a compromised president in the White House by a grateful Trump and that was later noted when he fired James Comey and brought Russian leadership into the Oval Office to provide highly classified information to them. Trump was not demanding Vladimir Putin to leave the USA alone, quite the contrary.
Was there a conspiracy that can be prosecuted? There was no direct link between Russia's work to undermine the 2016 elections and plans made by the Trump Campaign or Trump. But, BOTH PARTIES UNDERSTOOD EACH OTHER AND THEIR COMMON INTERESTS. Why would Russia compromise Trump legally if they wanted a puppet?
***
There are three stars in this part of the introduction that separates SUBJECTS from each other. The top part is about findings. The bottom part is about evidence.
Below we describe the evidentiary considerations underpinning statements about the results of our investigation and the Special Counsel's charging decisions, and we then provide an overview of the two volumes of our report.
The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
Robert Mueller did not bring charges forward. I hope that is clearly understood. It is not to say there weren't members of the Special Council engaged in subsequent prosecutions. They did the work. They knew the case(s). They were professionals that could carry out a presentation of evidence and prosecution, BUT, the charging agency was the DOJ.
In this particular instance, Rod Rosenstein would receive the findings of the Special Council. With the evidence staring him in the face, the Assistant Attorney General would authorize the indictments. Carrying out the indictments fell back to the Special Council and why Robert Mueller had to pass on the Grand Juries to others to finish the Special Council work when they were closed out by Barr.
To my way of thinking CONSISTENCY in prosecution through Grand Juries is best pursued by the people most knowledgable of the investigation. That is why with continued Grand Juries involved, it makes no sense to me that Robert Mueller and the Special Council isn't concluding the work. That could also be selfish of me as well. Robert Mueller and his Special Council have lives. They would do what is asked of them to a conclusion. There is a possibility there were personal reasons to close out the Special Council and return to them to their private lives. If that is the case, I wish them all well. But, occurrences with them since the report was handed to Barr and the fact this looks like an incomplete document really raises issues about the report.
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
The Special Council never used the idea of collusion. With Trump ranting and raving about "No Collusion" indicates he never bothered to read the report, not even the introduction of Volume I. The word collusion in the vapors of Trump Speak is political and continues to be political. It is not a legal finding.
In examining the evidence before the Special Council the word used was coordinate or coordinated. The legal definition of the word(s) is established by the Special Council to be an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.
The word collusion has no legal standing in this report.
The other word used in the report is collude. It was not the language of the charging document of the Special Council. This language was defined as understood between the Special Counsel and the Assistant Attorney General in some communications. The Special Council noted it was used in the public realm, but, was not a legal term or statute. That might seem petty to many, but, it isn't. The language of any document has to be understood without any misunderstandings and why DEFINING words are important. There was a vocabulary clarified between the two entities. When dealing with the law, it means if misunderstandings took place there could be trouble for those being indicted. So the language used by the Special Counsel is very important and should not be dismissed.
***
Three more stars for the same reason.
The report on our investigation consists of two volumes: Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Section IV describes links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions.
Volume II addresses the President's actions towards the FBI's investigation into Russia' s interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the Special Counsel' s investigation. Volume II separately states its framework and the considerations that guided that investigation.
This concludes the Introduction of Volume I. It simply states the way the report is organized and somewhat why it is organized into two volumes.
This is a real treat. The investigation of the Special Council is before us all and it will provide incredible insight to the methods of Russian agencies and agents. It will also provide an insight into USA intelligence and how dear the USA is treated. This is special.
I will continue with more of Volume I later.
Thank you for your interest.
There are a lot of interesting "government speak" involved in the Special Council report.
The report opens up at the top of the first page as:
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product//May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
When I first looked at that line I thought, "How odd. They didn't clean up the top of the page." See, I find things like that significant. I don't ever recall opening up a government document presented to the public in such a haphazard way. I would expect other people thought the same thing. It is a work document. It is not a finished product. It makes me believe Barr insisted on a quick conclusion. I think it was a very big mistake to provide such a "rough" document to the public. Barr really should have let the Special Council finish it's work.
I don't even think it is a final draft of the final product. Below is the law of which appears at the top of the first page with a line through it.
Disclosure of materials (click here) covered by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) may be made without a court order "to an attorney for the government for use in the performance of such attorney's duty." See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(A)(i). "Attorney for the government" is defined in Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(b).
Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) does not authorize disclosure to attorneys for other Federal government agencies. See United States v. Bates, 627 F.2d 349, 351 (D.C.Cir. 1980). Nor is disclosure permitted under this section to attorneys for States or local governments. In re Holovachka, 317 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1963); Corona Construction Co. v. Ampress Brick Co., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 598 (N.D.Ill. 1974).
Rule 6(e)(2), Fed.R.Crim.P., prohibits "an attorney for the government" from disclosing matters occurring before a grand jury, except as otherwise provided in the rules. Rule 1(b), Fed.R.Crim.P., defines "attorney for the government" to include as the Attorney General, an authorized assistant of the Attorney General, a United States Attorney, an authorized assistant of a United States Attorney, and certain other persons in cases arising under the laws of Guam. In United States v. Forman, 71 F.3d 1214 (6th Cir. 1995), the court of appeals held that an attorney employed in the Tax Division of the Department of Justice who had gained access to grand jury materials but had not been assigned to review the materials or to participate in the grand jury proceedings was not "an attorney for the government" because he was not an "authorized" assistant to the Attorney General with respect to the grand jury materials that he disclosed to the target of the investigation....
That highlighted line is the real issue with the redactions. There are ongoing grand juries. We don't know who is handling them. We do know that Robert Mueller within the Special Council handed the grand juries to others. I really want to know who is carrying out these grand juries. I don't trust Barr as far as I spit and I don't spit.
Such disclosures can take place in OVERSIGHT by the US House and/or US Senate in closed session. The Judiciary Committees of both houses can receive the information. They can provide guidance to any corruption being conducted.
"Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election"
That is one heck of an interesting title. Imagine that. Russia wants to control the USA government from the Executive Branch. That should make every American plenty nervous.
Volume I or II
(Volume one of two - in case someone doesn't know their Roman Numerals.)
Special Council Robert S. Mueller, III
Submitted Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c)
Washington, D.C.
March 2019
Fairly straight forward stuff. He put his name on it.
Page 2 is blank with the same header as page 1.
Page 3 begins the Table of Contents with the same header as page 1. The Table of Contents of Volume 1 looks really interesting. The Special Council even discusses the in Part 2, Section A, the Russian Internet Research Agency known by the acronym IRA. Wow. He went into a lot of detail in examining the mechanisms Russia used to break into the USA election of 2016. No stone unturned, I suppose. That sounds like Mueller.
The table of contents is numbered in small Roman numerals. Page numbers i thought v. That is translated as page number 1 through 5.
There are redactions in the table of contents. Those redactions are in black to block the words and are marked "HOM" or Harm To Ongoing Matter. There are nine redactions in the table of contents. I think there is knowledge of some of those Grand Juries. There are Russians and friends of Trump. The sentencing of Michael Flynn has yet to be decided.
...He and his team (click here) indicted twenty-five Russians and secured the convictions or guilty pleas of several Trump campaign officials for lying in connection with the investigation, including campaign chairman Paul Manafort, top deputy Rick Gates, campaign advisers Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, and Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen. Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone faces multiple criminal charges arising out of his attempts to conceal his contacts with WikiLeaks....
I don't recall hearing much about Rick Gates, except, he was cooperating.
There is a blank page after the table of contents with the same header as the rest of the pages and like page one. Then the introduction begins on page 1. The title page isn't really page 1. It is just the beginning of the report. Just to be clear.
Computer link (click here)
"Introduction to Volume I"
...The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.
I remember that. It was more than alarming. Then it shows up in Wikileaks.
In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks's first release of stolen documents, a foreign government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities....
So this is the stuff Barr wants to say is illegitimate and the investigation should have never taken place. Is he communist, too? It sure sounds like it. There is no reason to question the integrity of this investigation or the investigation started by James Comey before the Special Council. The entire country knew about the hacking of the DNCC and the Clinton Campaign. That alone is enough to bring about an investigation to find out how the 2016 election was compromised.
The American people don't have the details as to how the investigation began with Papadopoulos. Did the FBI agents come first or did the foreign intelligence service supplying the information about Papadopoulos come first? The important thing is that there is a connection, criminal of course, but difficult to substantiate, between Russia and Trump and his campaign. Heck, Manafort alone made every intelligence officer in any country crazy.
Barr has absolutely no reason to raise doubt to the integrity of this report or the methods that occurred to achieve it. There were red flags everywhere. It was right and necessary. Just because Barr wants to practice politics from the AG office rather than law doesn't make him god.
This introduction states there was a foreign government representative that received information about the connection between Trump and Russia. It would have been completely incompetent of the FBI to ignore such a report. They had to act and seemed to have sent in their own agents to probe the veracity of the facts.
It is all good intelligence work.
...That fall, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government "directed recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including US political organizations," and, " [t]hese thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process." After the election, in late December 2016, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia for having interfered in the election. By early 2017, several congressional committees were examining Russia's interference in the election....
Redundancy is always good. A single agency of the USA would have status, but, two federal agencies were chiming into the facts. An investigation was imminent. There is no reason for Barr to seek to undermine the legitimacy of the investigation or the people that investigated. All the reasons for this investigation are sound, legally and morally. Russia threatened USA sovereignty. End of discussion.
I am going to fix myself a cup of tea.
continued on next entry
U.S. Department of Justice
When I first looked at that line I thought, "How odd. They didn't clean up the top of the page." See, I find things like that significant. I don't ever recall opening up a government document presented to the public in such a haphazard way. I would expect other people thought the same thing. It is a work document. It is not a finished product. It makes me believe Barr insisted on a quick conclusion. I think it was a very big mistake to provide such a "rough" document to the public. Barr really should have let the Special Council finish it's work.
I don't even think it is a final draft of the final product. Below is the law of which appears at the top of the first page with a line through it.
Disclosure of materials (click here) covered by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) may be made without a court order "to an attorney for the government for use in the performance of such attorney's duty." See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(A)(i). "Attorney for the government" is defined in Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(b).
Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) does not authorize disclosure to attorneys for other Federal government agencies. See United States v. Bates, 627 F.2d 349, 351 (D.C.Cir. 1980). Nor is disclosure permitted under this section to attorneys for States or local governments. In re Holovachka, 317 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1963); Corona Construction Co. v. Ampress Brick Co., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 598 (N.D.Ill. 1974).
Rule 6(e)(2), Fed.R.Crim.P., prohibits "an attorney for the government" from disclosing matters occurring before a grand jury, except as otherwise provided in the rules. Rule 1(b), Fed.R.Crim.P., defines "attorney for the government" to include as the Attorney General, an authorized assistant of the Attorney General, a United States Attorney, an authorized assistant of a United States Attorney, and certain other persons in cases arising under the laws of Guam. In United States v. Forman, 71 F.3d 1214 (6th Cir. 1995), the court of appeals held that an attorney employed in the Tax Division of the Department of Justice who had gained access to grand jury materials but had not been assigned to review the materials or to participate in the grand jury proceedings was not "an attorney for the government" because he was not an "authorized" assistant to the Attorney General with respect to the grand jury materials that he disclosed to the target of the investigation....
That highlighted line is the real issue with the redactions. There are ongoing grand juries. We don't know who is handling them. We do know that Robert Mueller within the Special Council handed the grand juries to others. I really want to know who is carrying out these grand juries. I don't trust Barr as far as I spit and I don't spit.
Such disclosures can take place in OVERSIGHT by the US House and/or US Senate in closed session. The Judiciary Committees of both houses can receive the information. They can provide guidance to any corruption being conducted.
"Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election"
That is one heck of an interesting title. Imagine that. Russia wants to control the USA government from the Executive Branch. That should make every American plenty nervous.
Volume I or II
(Volume one of two - in case someone doesn't know their Roman Numerals.)
Special Council Robert S. Mueller, III
Submitted Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c)
Washington, D.C.
March 2019
Fairly straight forward stuff. He put his name on it.
Page 2 is blank with the same header as page 1.
Page 3 begins the Table of Contents with the same header as page 1. The Table of Contents of Volume 1 looks really interesting. The Special Council even discusses the in Part 2, Section A, the Russian Internet Research Agency known by the acronym IRA. Wow. He went into a lot of detail in examining the mechanisms Russia used to break into the USA election of 2016. No stone unturned, I suppose. That sounds like Mueller.
The table of contents is numbered in small Roman numerals. Page numbers i thought v. That is translated as page number 1 through 5.
There are redactions in the table of contents. Those redactions are in black to block the words and are marked "HOM" or Harm To Ongoing Matter. There are nine redactions in the table of contents. I think there is knowledge of some of those Grand Juries. There are Russians and friends of Trump. The sentencing of Michael Flynn has yet to be decided.
...He and his team (click here) indicted twenty-five Russians and secured the convictions or guilty pleas of several Trump campaign officials for lying in connection with the investigation, including campaign chairman Paul Manafort, top deputy Rick Gates, campaign advisers Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, and Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen. Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone faces multiple criminal charges arising out of his attempts to conceal his contacts with WikiLeaks....
I don't recall hearing much about Rick Gates, except, he was cooperating.
There is a blank page after the table of contents with the same header as the rest of the pages and like page one. Then the introduction begins on page 1. The title page isn't really page 1. It is just the beginning of the report. Just to be clear.
Computer link (click here)
"Introduction to Volume I"
...The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.
I remember that. It was more than alarming. Then it shows up in Wikileaks.
In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks's first release of stolen documents, a foreign government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities....
So this is the stuff Barr wants to say is illegitimate and the investigation should have never taken place. Is he communist, too? It sure sounds like it. There is no reason to question the integrity of this investigation or the investigation started by James Comey before the Special Council. The entire country knew about the hacking of the DNCC and the Clinton Campaign. That alone is enough to bring about an investigation to find out how the 2016 election was compromised.
The American people don't have the details as to how the investigation began with Papadopoulos. Did the FBI agents come first or did the foreign intelligence service supplying the information about Papadopoulos come first? The important thing is that there is a connection, criminal of course, but difficult to substantiate, between Russia and Trump and his campaign. Heck, Manafort alone made every intelligence officer in any country crazy.
Barr has absolutely no reason to raise doubt to the integrity of this report or the methods that occurred to achieve it. There were red flags everywhere. It was right and necessary. Just because Barr wants to practice politics from the AG office rather than law doesn't make him god.
This introduction states there was a foreign government representative that received information about the connection between Trump and Russia. It would have been completely incompetent of the FBI to ignore such a report. They had to act and seemed to have sent in their own agents to probe the veracity of the facts.
It is all good intelligence work.
...That fall, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government "directed recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including US political organizations," and, " [t]hese thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process." After the election, in late December 2016, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia for having interfered in the election. By early 2017, several congressional committees were examining Russia's interference in the election....
Redundancy is always good. A single agency of the USA would have status, but, two federal agencies were chiming into the facts. An investigation was imminent. There is no reason for Barr to seek to undermine the legitimacy of the investigation or the people that investigated. All the reasons for this investigation are sound, legally and morally. Russia threatened USA sovereignty. End of discussion.
I am going to fix myself a cup of tea.
continued on next entry
Sarah Sanders does not expect the American people to believe Trump and Putin had a good ole boy chat.
No one has an hour long conversation with Putin to check in and see if all is well and isn't it funny how Donald Trump is right about everything.
I want to know who intercepted the jets?
May 3, 2019
By Dartunorro Clark
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin (click here) spoke Friday and both agreed "there was no collusion" between Moscow and Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said.
Sanders said that the two briefly discussed special counsel Robert Mueller's report "essentially in the context of that it's over and there was no collusion." She added that she was "pretty sure both leaders were very well aware of (the Mueller report's finding) long before this call took place" because it was "something we've said for the better part of two and a half years."...
I want to know who intercepted the jets?
May 3, 2019
By Dartunorro Clark
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin (click here) spoke Friday and both agreed "there was no collusion" between Moscow and Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said.
Sanders said that the two briefly discussed special counsel Robert Mueller's report "essentially in the context of that it's over and there was no collusion." She added that she was "pretty sure both leaders were very well aware of (the Mueller report's finding) long before this call took place" because it was "something we've said for the better part of two and a half years."...
Why did Assange remain in asylum for seven years?
By every estimation, if Assange was sentenced the most he could in the USA it would be five years, why put it off?
Assange is involved in a very risky venture with Wikileaks. I am confident he knows that. He doesn't accept the risk. He could have been free already. He would not or will get five years. I would think as a businessman he would be ready for every event before it happens. He could have avoided any jail time in the UK if he simply came forward to answer charges in the USA.
As a matter of fact, with the extradition taking as long as it can possibly take (which will make Trump happy), Assange will have finished his jail time in England. He will more than likely have to be re-arrested to be extradited. It may very well be after the 2020 elections. Trump doesn't want to appear as though he would drop all charges before the next election.
Dropping charges against Assange can also be Quid Pro Quo.
One of the ongoing trials in the USA and why some redactions exist to the public involves people that were linked to the leaks from Russia to Wikileaks.
This should be a lesson that when people like Trump run for office, there are no friends. If Assange believed helping Trump would make his nightmares go away, he doesn't know Trump.
He and Wikileaks should focus on helping the little guy. They are his friends. Trump is not a friend to anyone. His focus was obvious with the vast tax reductions to the USA wealthy. Wikileaks did not do the little guy any favors this time.
April 11, 2019
Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange, in a prison van, as he leaves Southwark Crown Court in London on May 1.
...The offence for which Assange is wanted in the US (click here) is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. It is grounded in an allegation that Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning to hack US Department of Defence files, and publish classified information on Wikileaks.
Assange maintains his innocence, and his defenders argue that his extradition would set a dangerous precedent for journalism and the publication of truthful information – particularly as it may affect the US....
Assange is involved in a very risky venture with Wikileaks. I am confident he knows that. He doesn't accept the risk. He could have been free already. He would not or will get five years. I would think as a businessman he would be ready for every event before it happens. He could have avoided any jail time in the UK if he simply came forward to answer charges in the USA.
As a matter of fact, with the extradition taking as long as it can possibly take (which will make Trump happy), Assange will have finished his jail time in England. He will more than likely have to be re-arrested to be extradited. It may very well be after the 2020 elections. Trump doesn't want to appear as though he would drop all charges before the next election.
Dropping charges against Assange can also be Quid Pro Quo.
One of the ongoing trials in the USA and why some redactions exist to the public involves people that were linked to the leaks from Russia to Wikileaks.
This should be a lesson that when people like Trump run for office, there are no friends. If Assange believed helping Trump would make his nightmares go away, he doesn't know Trump.
He and Wikileaks should focus on helping the little guy. They are his friends. Trump is not a friend to anyone. His focus was obvious with the vast tax reductions to the USA wealthy. Wikileaks did not do the little guy any favors this time.
Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange, in a prison van, as he leaves Southwark Crown Court in London on May 1.
...The offence for which Assange is wanted in the US (click here) is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. It is grounded in an allegation that Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning to hack US Department of Defence files, and publish classified information on Wikileaks.
Assange maintains his innocence, and his defenders argue that his extradition would set a dangerous precedent for journalism and the publication of truthful information – particularly as it may affect the US....
Donald Trump 'encourages Russia to hack Clinton emails' BBC News
You betcha. Trump is corrupt to the core, his company was in business with Russians to find money and he was in conversation with Russia regarding a tower in Moscow. The FBI better find out what it needs to in the interest of national security.
We know for a fact that Trump Company was communicating with a Russian bank, I believe it was Alfa Bank across the Atlantic on a cyber line. As soon as it was brought to the attention of Trump the communications stopped. It is fact and today Trump remains a danger to the USA national security. And why? Because Trump has things he wants to do in Russia.
Trump can't have it both ways. He can't ask Russia to spy for him or allow him to benefit from illegal computer hacking and not expect to trigger concerns with USA national security. If the FBI came up with pictures of Trump engaged in infidelity other than a Russian spy, that would be out of line, but, what they did was directed at the engagement by the campaign of Russia. Paul Manafort alone screamed violation of national security.
Trump uses this type of press for his NO INFORMATION VOTERS to prove the Deep State is real.
May 2, 2019
By Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt and Mark Mazzeti
These are Paul Manafort's best friends. Don't lie and say Trump didn't know. The way Trump was hot for Russian money he knew and still does know plenty.
Washington — The conversation at a London bar (click title to entry - thank you) in September 2016 took a strange turn when the woman sitting across from George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, asked a direct question: Was the Trump campaign working with Russia?
The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues. But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation. The F.B.I. sent her to London as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign’s links to Russia.
The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate....
We know for a fact that Trump Company was communicating with a Russian bank, I believe it was Alfa Bank across the Atlantic on a cyber line. As soon as it was brought to the attention of Trump the communications stopped. It is fact and today Trump remains a danger to the USA national security. And why? Because Trump has things he wants to do in Russia.
Trump can't have it both ways. He can't ask Russia to spy for him or allow him to benefit from illegal computer hacking and not expect to trigger concerns with USA national security. If the FBI came up with pictures of Trump engaged in infidelity other than a Russian spy, that would be out of line, but, what they did was directed at the engagement by the campaign of Russia. Paul Manafort alone screamed violation of national security.
Trump uses this type of press for his NO INFORMATION VOTERS to prove the Deep State is real.
By Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt and Mark Mazzeti
These are Paul Manafort's best friends. Don't lie and say Trump didn't know. The way Trump was hot for Russian money he knew and still does know plenty.
Washington — The conversation at a London bar (click title to entry - thank you) in September 2016 took a strange turn when the woman sitting across from George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, asked a direct question: Was the Trump campaign working with Russia?
The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues. But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation. The F.B.I. sent her to London as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign’s links to Russia.
The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate....
This is the first time I have read any connection to real drug trafficking regarding Hezbollah.
Hezbollah became far stronger and more independent during the time Daesh was occupying the region. I knew they had acquired a drug trade and trafficking, but, I had no idea it was tied to Venezuela.
This is insane. There could be Middle East drug traffickers in Venezuela along side nuclear capacity Russian jets.
Russia is a global menace to facilitiate such idiocy.
Oh, this is precious. How long has this disaster been going on?
His family immigrated, his immediate family (mom and dad), from the Middle East. He is a Ba'athist.
Maduro has to go and El Aissami needs to be arrested. There are already warrants for him. The men holding Venezuela hostage find Russia's protection agreeable.
Desperate men can be very stupid. Russia is a problem. By assisting these men they are attempting to build a military base in the Western Hemisphere. However, when it comes to the drug trade and trafficking Russia is looking the other way. Besides illicit drugs serve Russia's purpose when it can facilitate problems within Western countries.
What a mess.
El Aissami's great-uncle, Shibli al-Aysami, in a suit beside Saddam Hussein in July 1989.
May 2, 2019
By Nicholas Casey
...Informants told intelligence agents (click here) that Mr. El Aissami’s father was involved in a plan to train Hezbollah members in Venezuela, “with the aim of expanding intelligence networks throughout Latin America and at the same time working in drug trafficking,” the documents say.
Mr. El Aissami helped the plan along, the dossier adds, by using his authority over residency permits to issue official documents to Hezbollah militants, enabling them to stay in the country.
Whether Hezbollah ever set up its intelligence network or drug routes in Venezuela is not addressed in the dossier. But it does assert that Hezbollah militants established themselves in the country with Mr. El Aissami’s help.
Mr. El Aissami acted as a facilitator to the underworld in other ways as well. The documents say that his brother, Feraz, went into business with Venezuela’s most notorious drug lord, Walid Makled, and held nearly $45 million in Swiss bank accounts....
Russia has destabilized regions around the world all in the name of controlling Daesh. It has no plans of ending the violence anytime soon. War is good business for Russia.
This is what happens when Putin's puppet is in the White House.
May 2, 2019
Russian and Syrian forces (click here) have stepped up air raids and shelling on rebel-held areas of northwestern Syria, the heaviest assault in the area since it was declared a demilitarised zone last year.
Villages and towns in northern Hama province and southern Idlib that were targeted overnight on Wednesday are part of a "safe zone", agreed in September between Russia and Turkey, as part of a deal that averted a major offensive on the area.
Schools and residential areas have been hit, Panos Moumtzis, the UN regional humanitarian coordinator, told Al Jazeera.
"There have been a number of casualties that have taken place in many locations: in health facilities, in schools, in residential areas," he said, adding about 250,000 people had been displaced
Separately, he told Reuters news agency "the barrel bombing is the worst we have seen in 15 months"....
Is this part of Trump's Middle East peace plan?
April 28, 2019
Israel will release two prisoners (click here) after the remains of a U.S.-born Israeli soldier missing since 1982 were recovered by Russian special forces in Syria, Israeli and Syrian officials said.
Russia, a key Damascus ally, this month handed over the remains and personal effects of Zachary Baumel, who was 21 when he was declared missing in action along with two other soldiers in the Battle of Sultan Yacoub during the 1982 Lebanon War....
The two prisoners to be released are a criminal prisoner, Zidan Taweel and a security prisoner Ahmed Khamis. According to some sources the men do not want to be returned to Syria.
FARC is reconstituting. There is some kind of war tribunal in Columbia. Recently, two well known ex-commanders of FARC, Ivan Marquez and El Paisa didn't show up for the tribunal hearings. (click here). Yep. I doubt if they ever show up again.
April 3, 2019
...This unification project (click here) began to take shape almost a year after the signing of a historic peace agreement between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – FARC).
Duarte’s initial plan was to extend the influence of the ex-FARC Eastern Bloc in the south of the country and aimed to gather between 6,000 and 8,000 men in 2019....
This is insane. There could be Middle East drug traffickers in Venezuela along side nuclear capacity Russian jets.
Russia is a global menace to facilitiate such idiocy.
Oh, this is precious. How long has this disaster been going on?
His family immigrated, his immediate family (mom and dad), from the Middle East. He is a Ba'athist.
Maduro has to go and El Aissami needs to be arrested. There are already warrants for him. The men holding Venezuela hostage find Russia's protection agreeable.
Desperate men can be very stupid. Russia is a problem. By assisting these men they are attempting to build a military base in the Western Hemisphere. However, when it comes to the drug trade and trafficking Russia is looking the other way. Besides illicit drugs serve Russia's purpose when it can facilitate problems within Western countries.
What a mess.
El Aissami's great-uncle, Shibli al-Aysami, in a suit beside Saddam Hussein in July 1989.May 2, 2019
By Nicholas Casey
...Informants told intelligence agents (click here) that Mr. El Aissami’s father was involved in a plan to train Hezbollah members in Venezuela, “with the aim of expanding intelligence networks throughout Latin America and at the same time working in drug trafficking,” the documents say.
Mr. El Aissami helped the plan along, the dossier adds, by using his authority over residency permits to issue official documents to Hezbollah militants, enabling them to stay in the country.
Whether Hezbollah ever set up its intelligence network or drug routes in Venezuela is not addressed in the dossier. But it does assert that Hezbollah militants established themselves in the country with Mr. El Aissami’s help.
Mr. El Aissami acted as a facilitator to the underworld in other ways as well. The documents say that his brother, Feraz, went into business with Venezuela’s most notorious drug lord, Walid Makled, and held nearly $45 million in Swiss bank accounts....
Russia has destabilized regions around the world all in the name of controlling Daesh. It has no plans of ending the violence anytime soon. War is good business for Russia.
This is what happens when Putin's puppet is in the White House.
May 2, 2019
Russian and Syrian forces (click here) have stepped up air raids and shelling on rebel-held areas of northwestern Syria, the heaviest assault in the area since it was declared a demilitarised zone last year.
Villages and towns in northern Hama province and southern Idlib that were targeted overnight on Wednesday are part of a "safe zone", agreed in September between Russia and Turkey, as part of a deal that averted a major offensive on the area.
Schools and residential areas have been hit, Panos Moumtzis, the UN regional humanitarian coordinator, told Al Jazeera.
"There have been a number of casualties that have taken place in many locations: in health facilities, in schools, in residential areas," he said, adding about 250,000 people had been displaced
Separately, he told Reuters news agency "the barrel bombing is the worst we have seen in 15 months"....
Is this part of Trump's Middle East peace plan?
April 28, 2019
Israel will release two prisoners (click here) after the remains of a U.S.-born Israeli soldier missing since 1982 were recovered by Russian special forces in Syria, Israeli and Syrian officials said.
Russia, a key Damascus ally, this month handed over the remains and personal effects of Zachary Baumel, who was 21 when he was declared missing in action along with two other soldiers in the Battle of Sultan Yacoub during the 1982 Lebanon War....
The two prisoners to be released are a criminal prisoner, Zidan Taweel and a security prisoner Ahmed Khamis. According to some sources the men do not want to be returned to Syria.
FARC is reconstituting. There is some kind of war tribunal in Columbia. Recently, two well known ex-commanders of FARC, Ivan Marquez and El Paisa didn't show up for the tribunal hearings. (click here). Yep. I doubt if they ever show up again.
April 3, 2019
...This unification project (click here) began to take shape almost a year after the signing of a historic peace agreement between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – FARC).
Duarte’s initial plan was to extend the influence of the ex-FARC Eastern Bloc in the south of the country and aimed to gather between 6,000 and 8,000 men in 2019....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)