#Ira S Rosenstein | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

phroyd · 6 years

Text

AG Barr’s Letter On Mueller Investigation

The Attorney General

Washington, D.C.

March 24, 2019

The Honorable Lindsey Graham

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

290 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

United States House of Representatives

2132 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

331 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Doug Collins

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary

United States House of Representatives

1504 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

The Special Counsel's Report

On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a "confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. $ 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

Page 1

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel's report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”1

The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

1 In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

Page 2

Obstruction of Justice.

The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.2

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Status of the Department’s Review

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel's report will be a “confidential report to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038,

2 See A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).

Page 3

37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,

William P. Barr

Attorney General

Page 4

Phroyd

#atty general #barr #muellr #letter

11 notes · View notes

jobsearchtips02 · 4 years

Text

Powell: ‘We’re Not Even Thinking About Thinking About Raising Rates’

Now Playing

6/10/2020 4: 22PM

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said Wednesday that the central bank has no plans to raise interest rates, and that it was committed to supporting the economy following the shock caused by the pandemic. Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News

Up Next

Sponsored

2: 21

Sponsored

Am I Doing What I Love?

9/22/2016 11: 59PM

9/22/2016

1: 00

Sponsored

Golf’s Data Revolution

9/9/2016 2: 16PM

9/9/2016

1: 30

Sponsored

How Worldly Experiences Can Shape One’s Success

1/24/2018

27: 34

Sponsored

Creating the Future Workforce

1/17/2017 3: 39PM

1/17/2017

Marketwatch and Barron’s

5: 17

How to build an investment portfolio that supports racial justice

6/12/2020 7: 00AM

6/12/2020

If you are an investor of any type – whether you have a 401(k), IRA, or trading account – you may be looking at your stock portfolio and wondering: what can I do to support racial justice with my dollars? Here’s what you need to know.

1: 46

Stiglitz on Paycheck Protection Programs

6/11/2020 5: 08PM

6/11/2020

30: 25

Adapting to the New Normal of the Workplace

6/11/2020 4: 15PM

6/11/2020

27: 53

The Altered Landscape of Tech Investing

6/11/2020 3: 56PM

6/11/2020

2: 04

What is a Wealth Tax?

6/11/2020 6: 30AM

6/11/2020

from Job Search Tips https://jobsearchtips.net/powell-were-not-even-thinking-about-thinking-about-raising-rates/

0 notes

harrythegreekblr · 5 years

Text

Chuang's Kangaroo court hides CIA's role in today's Uranium One trial

David Ira Salem, CIA/SEC/DOJ attorney, prosecutor in ongoing Mark T. Lambert Uranium One case

https://ccjs.umd.edu/facultyprofile/salem/david

David Ira Salem works as an attorney for the CIA.

Office of General Counsel.

Someone has to represent the CIA in a criminal trial.

It is Salem.

His picture and resume is posted at the top of this story.

He represents the best interests of the CIA.

Over the best interests of the:

American people

FBI

Justice Department

https://www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/general-counsel/

Salem is also the prosecutor in the Uranium One case.

It reopened this morning at 9 a.m.

In Federal District Court of Greenbelt, Maryland.

A suburb of Washington, D.C.

It is a conflict of interest.

Salem filed motions to suppress evidence.

Judge Theodore Chuang approved Salem’s motions to suppress:

two million documents

the expert witness for the defense from testifying

testimony and references to FBI informant William Douglas Campell

evidence favorable to the defendant

the CIA’s role in Uranium One before 2011 going back to 1993

limiting the defense to one witness, Carol Condrey, an adverse witness

Judge Theodore Chuang (above)

https://brassballs.blog/home/uranium-one-trial-starts-october-24-24th-theodore-chuang-maryland-greenbelt-mark-t-tutt-lambert-tenex-hillary-clinton-foundation-mikerin-condrey-fisk-rod-daren-tonya-chutkan-rosenstein-kavanaugh-brett-bill-rod-campbell-william-d-day

As prosecutor, Salem helped filed 20 pages of items it would like to exclude as evidence.

It starts at Page 20 in this link:

https://www.scribd.com/document/429365609/Mark-T-Lambert-trial-prosecution-s-motions-to-exclude-evidence-etal-39-pages-dated-Oct-7th-2019

Salem was also successful in excluding evidence presented in other Uranium One cases.

It included the fact that the FBI never:

investigated

arrested

signed a sworn statement as to the defendants’ alleged crimes

was asked to seize evidence from a search warrant

had custody of the evidence

had a grand jury indictment

Sources:

https://brassballs.blog/home/false-affidavits-used-david-gregory-gadren-frank-gary-machine-to-convict-and-prosecute-uranium-one-defendants-judge-theodore-chuang-rod-rosenstein-department-of-energy-doe-rodney-fisk-daren-condrey-mark-t-lambert

https://brassballs.blog/home/judge-chuang-accepted-two-guilty-pleas-in-his-four-uranium-one-cases-without-a-grand-jury-hearing-indictment-or-warrant-daren-condrey-carol-mark-t-lambert-vadim-mikerin-mariia-maria-butina-trump-doe-oig-department-energy-office-inspector-general

https://brassballs.blog/home/rosenstein-judge-charles-day-mccabe-inspector-general-fakes-prosecution-in-first-uranium-one-case

The defense can win this case by asking the prosecutors for the “chain of custody” of the evidence.

Or who has it?

Where?

Any break in the chain wins the case for the defense.

However, the defense is in the tank too.

It never asked for any of these things regarding the evidence other than:

where is it?

how come no one can read it?

what does the Department of Energy (DOE) have it?

Here are the four Uranium One cases:

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/fcpa/cases/mark-lambert

Instead, the Department of Energy (DOE), said they have “Special Agents” who have the same authority as the FBI.

Under what legal authority?

The CIA?

No one is challenging the DOE’s position that their Special Agents are equal to or better than the ones working for the FBI.

Including the FBI.

Prosecutors have used false identities for two of their informants in the Uranium One cases.

One of them is Rodney Fisk.

He supposedly died in 2011.

Any witnesses to his funeral?

His wife lives in London and worked for American University.

Fisk died having no assets, according to his will.

The court waived fees in Fisk’s probating of his will because there were no assets.

Fisk’s true identity is Alex Copson.

The pseudo FBI agent working for the DOE is in a similar capacity is David Gadren,

His identify remains protected because it is false.

And faked in the court record.

Gadren is read into the court record.

He says nothing.

Nothing.

Ask the court reporters.

Gadren never attended any court proceeding.

The Judge asked Prosecutor Salem if he planned on having Gadren testify for the prosecution.

“No”, said Salem.

It is like the cop was fails to appear for your court hearing on a traffic ticket.

If your arresting officer fails to appear on your court date, the case is supposed to be thrown out.

No one is testifying against you.

This is the Federal District Court of Maryland.

https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/

This is Uranium One.

https://www.scribd.com/document/411920875/Department-of-Energy-Special-Agent-David-Gadren-s-10-page-affidavit-of-money-laundering-scheme-in-Uranium-One

Defense lawyers could have called Gadren to the stand.

Imagine.

The court issues a subpoena to Gadren to testify.

He fails to show up.

No one can find him.

It would have confirmed Gadren never existed.

Then who falsified the arresting sworn statements of criminal offenses?

The arrests of all the Uranium One defendants were made through the:

Office of Inspector General for the Departments of Energy (DOE)

U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein

Andrew G. McCabe of the FBI

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/russian-nuclear-energy-official-pleads-guilty-money-laundering-conspiracy-involving

https://www.energy.gov/ig/about-us/careers/criminal-investigator

Besides Salem, who else is collecting two checks?

One from the CIA.

One from the FBI or Justice Department.

Peter Strzok (strock).

Former CIA/FBI Agent Peter Strzok (above)

Source:

https://brassballs.blog/home/strzok-worked-for-cia-and-fbi-at-the-same-time-in-counterespionage

And Lisa Barsoomian.

Rod Rosenstein is her husband.

She gets two checks too.

One from the CIA.

One from the Justice Department.

Just like Salem.

CIA/Justice Dept. attorney, Lisa Barsoomian (above) with her husband, Rod Rosenstein (upper left)

https://brassballs.blog/home/rod-rosensteins-wife-lisa-barsoomian-is-justice-department-ses-lawyer-on-call-for-deep-state-multiple-presidents-and-federal-agencies-senior-executive-service

https://www.scribd.com/document/433007361/Mark-T-Lambert-transcript-pretrial-hearing-Oct-28th-2019-65-pages-Uranium-One-trial-Greenbelt-MD-Judge-Chuang

The Mike Flynn criminal cases had 22,000 documents.

0 notes

thewebofslime · 5 years

Link

I wrote a book about the Mueller report — before the report was published. The published report shows that I have overestimated the Mueller team. The report is a completely one-sided accusation against Trump, like a criminal complaint or an indictment; it is very long and written for the consumption of the media rather than legal professionals. It consists of two volumes. Volume I is devoted to the supposed subject of the investigation: the allegation of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and any Russian in alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. Its conclusion manifests in two lines: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Given almost unlimited power, resources, and practically two years spent on the investigation, it finally proves that there was no conspiracy and no coordination. Having found no conspiracy, the Mueller report then uses about 200 pages to fully develop a conspiracy theory. This conspiracy theory repeats almost every insinuation made by the Democratic Party, the Obama administration, and the media against Trump. The fake news publications are seriously cited as sources, even the articles that are known as information dumps by the DNC. The Washington Post is cited as a source 47 times, CNN is cited 24 times, and so on (counting both volumes). The Mueller Report also recursively cites the earlier Mueller indictments against Russian persons his team made earlier, although they were not heard in a court. Finally, it uses coerced statements that his team suborned from Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos, and other individuals during the witch hunt. Insinuations are reported as facts. Volume II attempts to make the case that Trump might have obstructed justice by exercising his duties as president. Inexplicably, it is longer than Volume I. Mark Levin called it an essay and op-ed for the liberal media, and I agree with him. The report indicates that the Mueller team accepted the talking points of the Democratic Party and Spygate perpetrators as the final truth and didn't even attempt to verify them. It also didn't investigate any of the multiple real connections between the Clinton campaign and the Russian government or the possibility that the Democratic Party courted Putin for electoral support. An unexpected discovery in the report is that Rosenstein and Mueller launched an investigation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions in October 2017. It seems as if they illegally took control of the Department of Justice. Rosenstein and Mueller are called registered Republicans. (This seems to be a trick of the Democratic Party: using its supporters — possibly former Republicans — disguised as registered Republicans in place of real Republicans.) The Mueller report never mentions Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Chris Steele, Bruce Ohr, or Nellie Ohr, except when quoting someone's words from 2017 or later. To be precise, the published report is slightly redacted, and some of these names might have been on the list of witnesses, which was blacked out. That doesn't affect the argument. The writers of the report seem to enjoy putting a Russian name or the word Russian in a sentence with the name of a Trump campaign member, even when the only thing they can say is that that member refused an offer to connect. Worse, even when IRA (the Saint Petersburg troll farm) accounts impersonated Republicans or the Trump campaign, Mueller counted it as contacts between the Trump campaign and "the Russians." Mueller's team collaborated with Facebook, Google, and Twitter to misinterpret the behavior of alleged IRA accounts as support for the Trump campaign, but they failed to mention their role in Skolkovo, Saint Petersburg. Some of the technology these companies helped the Russian Federation to develop there and to test on U.S. audiences are useful for interfering in U.S. elections. Neither Skolkovo nor Clinton cash was mentioned in the report. Too bad, because "Skolkovo happens to be the site of the Russian Security Service (FSB)'s security centers 16 and 18, which are in charge of information warfare for the Russian government." This quote from a 2010 article from well known security researcher Jeffrey Carr appeared in the American Thinker in August 2016. The concern has never been officially addressed. One thing is certain: publication of the Mueller report is the end of nothing. Nobody is going to just move on. The Democratic Party leaders, their accomplices, and their hangers-on bet everything on it, and they have already signaled that they won't accept this loss — neither the loss of the Russian hoax nor the loss of the 2016 elections. For them, the Mueller report is a roadmap for impeachment. This is why the wheels of justice should start rotating in the opposite direction. The DOJ and FBI HQ served as a coup Petri dish for too long. It's draining time.

#TheWebOfSlime

0 notes

teeky185 · 6 years

Link

The following is the text of the letter United States Attorney General William Barr sent to Congress on Sunday summarising a report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on his investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 presidential election: Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins: As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, march 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert Mueller III and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared. The Special Counsel's Report On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a "confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions" he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c). This report is entitled "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election." Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation. William Barr, U.S. attorney general, leaves his home in McLean, Virginia Credit: Bloomberg The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel's report. Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans -including individuals associated with the Trump campaign - joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Special Counsel Robert Mueller walks after attending church in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities. The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple. offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign. Obstruction of Justice The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President - most of which have been the subject of public reporting - that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction .. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president. In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-ofjustice offense. Status of the Department's Review The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel's report will be a "confidential report" to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies. Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6( e ), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to "matter[ s] occurring before grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6( e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function. At a glance | Who has been charged by the Russia investigation Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6( e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6( e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies. As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that "the Attorney General may determine that public release of' notifications to your respective Committees "would be in the public interest." 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you. Sincerely, William P. Barr Attorney General

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2HRJyj4

#latest news #Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

0 notes

nickyschneiderus · 6 years

Text

12 Russian intelligence officials indicted by Special Counsel for hacking DNC during 2016 election

Twelve Russian intelligence officers have been indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s team for their involvement in the hacking of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails ahead of the 2016 presidential election, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced on Friday.

Rosenstein, speaking at the RFK Main Justice Building in Washington D.C., said the 12 intelligence officers were charged with conspiring to hack into computers, with the intent of releasing documents to interfere in the election.

The hackers allegedly used spearphishing techniques—sending misleading emails to get passwords—and installed “malicious software” to get the hacked email. The Russians also created “fictitious” accounts, namely DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, to release the emails.

The attempts to hack email accounts of Hillary Clinton’s campaign began in “at least” March 2016, according to the indictment, and in April 2016 they were successful in hacking the computer networks of the DNC and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).

“The object of the conspiracy was to hack into the computers of U.S. persons and entities involved in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, steal documents from those computers, and stage releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” the indictment reads.

The announcement comes just days ahead of a meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Rosenstein said the president was briefed on the indictments earlier this week.

In February Mueller’s team indicted 13 Russian nationals and three entities connected to the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian “troll farm” that spread disinformation about the 2016 election on social media.

The indictment made clear that the efforts of the IRA was to “sow discord” among voters and “supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump.”

No one wants to help George Papadopoulos pay his ‘legal fees’ for Russia probe

20 tweets Trump sent about the Russia probe since he stopped ‘focusing’ on it

Trump defends Russia before summit announcement

from Ricky Schneiderus Curation https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/rosenstein-mueller-russian-intelligence-officials/

#Ricky Schneiderus Curation

0 notes

thetrumpdebacle · 7 years

Link

The Internet Research Agency, based in St. Petersburg, was named in the indictment as the hub of an ambitious effort to trick Americans into following Russian-fed propaganda that pushed U.S. voters toward then-Republican candidate Donald Trump and away from Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The indictment charges that some of the Russian suspects interacted with Americans associated with the Trump campaign, but those associates did not realize they were being manipulated.

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein called the charges “a reminder that people are not always who they appear on the Internet. The indictment alleges that the Russian conspirators want to promote social discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed.”

Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III did not attend the news briefing, but the 37-page indictment provides the most detailed description from the U.S. government of Russian interference in the election.

Prosecutors said the Internet Research Agency kept a list of real Americans who its employees had contacted using false personas and had asked to assist the effort. The list, which numbered over 100 people by late August 2016, included the U.S. citizens’ contact information, a summary of each person’s political views and the activities the Russians had asked them to undertake.

None of those charged are in custody, according to Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office. Russia does not typically allow any of its citizens to be extradited to the United States to face trial, so it is unlikely the individuals will be turned over, but it will likely prevent them from traveling outside Russia.

Some of the Russians posed as U.S. people and, without revealing their Russian identities, “communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities,” the indictment said.

By February 2016, the suspects had decided whom they were supporting in the 2016 race. According to the indictment, Internet Research Agency specialists were instructed to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump – we support them.)”

Prosecutors say some Russian employees of the troll farm were chastised in September 2016 when they had a “low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton” and were told it was “imperative to intensify criticizing” the Democratic nominee in future posts.

The charges include conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud and aggravated identity theft.

One of those indicted is Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, who has long been identified in the Russian media as the financial backer of the Internet Research Agency. He is a caterer who has been nicknamed “Putin’s chef” because of his close ties to the Russian president. Concord Consulting and Concord Catering, two Russian businesses also charged by Mueller’s team Friday, have previously been identified as Prigozhin vehicles.

“The Americans are very impressionable people, and they see what they want to see,” Prigozhin told Russia’s RIA Novosti state news agency in response to the indictment. “I respect them very much.”

Referring to the list of indicted individuals, he added: “I am not at all disappointed that I appear in this list. If they want to see the devil – let them.”

The Internet Research Agency was at the center of Silicon Valley’s investigation into Russian meddling during the 2016 presidential election. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Google all found evidence that the private firm used social media to divide American voters across a range of polarizing issues, including race, religion, gun rights and immigration.

Tweets and Facebook posts that have been made public as part of these investigations make clear that the Russian disinformation effort broadly sought to favor Trump and undermine the support for Clinton. This conclusion has been backed by the work of several independent researchers.

Typically called a “troll farm,” the Internet Research Agency is regarded as the most prominent part of the Russian disinformation campaign, though congressional investigators pushed for evidence of other operations, including from countries other than Russia, that shared the same purpose.

Overall, Facebook acknowledged to Congress that the Internet Research Agency had bought 3,000 ads on its platform that reached 11.4 million users. The agency’s employees also reportedly made many free posts that reached 126 million users. In addition to polarizing online political conversation, Facebook reported that the Internet Research Agency used Facebook pages to organize 129 real-world events that drew the attention of nearly 340,000 Facebook users.

One of these, organized by a group called Heart of Texas, took place on May 21, 2016, under the banner of “Stop Islamization of Texas.” On that same day, another Russian-controlled Facebook group, called United Muslims of America, publicized a competing rally to “Save Islamic Knowledge” at the same place and time.

Twitter has acknowledged finding 3,814 accounts linked to the IRA, which together posted some 176,000 tweets in the 10 weeks preceding the election. The company also found 50,258 automated accounts it said were connected to the Russian government and tweeted more than a million times.

One particularly notorious account linked to the Russian firm claimed to speak for Tennessee Republicans. It persuaded a wide range of American politicians, celebrities and journalists to share tweets with their own massive lists of followers. The list of prominent people who tweeted out links from the account, @Ten_GOP, which Twitter shut down in August, included political figures such Michael Flynn, who became Trump’s first national security adviser, and former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone, celebrities such as Nicki Minaj and James Woods and media personalities such as Ann Coulter and Chris Hayes.

The IRA Twitter accounts frequently used links from prominent American news organizations, including The Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle, to push particular narratives related to the campaign, according to research from Columbia University social media researcher Jonathan Albright.

Twitter declined to comment Friday on the indictment.

Authors information: Sari Horwitz covers the Justice Department, law enforcement and criminal justice issues nationwide for The Washington Post, where she has been a reporter for 33 years. Devlin Barrett writes about national security and law enforcement for The Washington Post. Craig Timberg is a national technology reporter for The Washington Post. Anton Troianovksi in Berlin and Rosalind S. Helderman and Spencer S. Hsu. contributed to this report.

via The Trump Debacle

#IFTTT #The Trump Debacle

0 notes

jobsearchtips02 · 4 years

Text

What April’s Jobs Report Says About the U.S. Economy

Coronavirus

1: 58

As Deaths Mount, Covid-19 Proves More Dangerous Than the Flu

5/7/2020 5: 30AM

5/7/2020

Covid-19 is commonly compared to the regular seasonal flu, but one has proven to be more dangerous than the other. WSJ’s Gerald F. Seib explains why the coronavirus is treated more seriously than the flu. Photo: Zuma Press

1: 44

New York City Schedules Nightly Subway System Shutdown to Combat Virus

5/6/2020 7: 24PM

5/6/2020

2: 19

Coronavirus Update: Trump Says Task Force to Shift Focus

5/6/2020 6: 50AM

5/6/2020

8: 21

Why Fully Recovering From Coronavirus Might Take Longer Than Expected

5/6/2020 7: 00AM

5/6/2020

6: 26

How the Troll Movie’s Streaming Victory Could Remake Hollywood

5/6/2020 6: 00AM

5/6/2020

Sponsored

27: 34

Sponsored

Creating the Future Workforce

1/17/2017 3: 39PM

1/17/2017

2: 21

Sponsored

Am I Doing What I Love?

9/22/2016 11: 59PM

9/22/2016

1: 00

Sponsored

Golf’s Data Revolution

9/9/2016 2: 16PM

9/9/2016

1: 30

Sponsored

How Worldly Experiences Can Shape One’s Success

1/24/2018

Marketwatch, Moneyish and Barron’s

2: 01

How bad is it if I withdraw from my 401(k) during the pandemic?

5/8/2020 7: 00AM

5/8/2020

If you’ve been affected by the coronavirus pandemic, the CARES Act allows you to withdraw up to $100,000 from a retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), without having to pay a 10% penalty – even if you’re not 591/2 years old. But should you do that?

5: 40

Goldman Sachs on Why Brent Needs to Stay at $30

5/7/2020 1: 24PM

5/7/2020

2: 33

Ex-NYMEX board member: oil’s historic drop may create ‘domino effect’

5/7/2020 7: 00AM

5/7/2020

2: 46

Why self-driving cars will need sensor infrastructure on roads

5/6/2020 7: 00AM

5/6/2020

2: 08

What’s the Difference Between a Bear Market and a Recession?

5/6/2020 6: 30AM

5/6/2020

from Job Search Tips https://jobsearchtips.net/what-aprils-jobs-report-says-about-the-u-s-economy/

0 notes