Mediaboss Marketing

Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch tried to keep the American people in the dark as long as possible. For most of 2017, the founders of Fusion GPS hid the truth about the origins of their now-infamous dossier on President Trump. The real story behind their fight to keep its partisan funding a secret is very different from the version the journalists-for-rent tell in their recent book, Crime in Progress. I know, because I was there.

They smear me, and my former boss, Sen. Chuck Grassley, who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then they paint themselves as victims of ruthlessly partisan McCarthyite tactics. The irony is rich, given that these former journalists collected a million bucks from one political party to accuse the other of acting as agents of Russia.

The dossier they peddled ignited hysteria about alleged traitors in our government more than anything else has since Joe McCarthys Enemies from Within speech nearly 70 years ago. Unlike traditional opposition research, the dossier relied on anonymous foreign sources to allege an international criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Two independent reviews have since gutted its sensational claims.

The report by the Justice Departments independent inspector general exposed how the FBI improperly used the dossier to justify domestic spying (a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant). The IG made it clear that the dossier was clearly unreliable. Special counsel Robert Mueller was unable to find sufficient evidence to charge a single American with the dossiers collusion conspiracy despite two years, $32 million, 500 witnesses, and 2,800 subpoenas-worth of additional investigation.

Like the dossier itself, Fusions attempt to defend its work in Crime in Progress cannot withstand scrutiny. It devotes a chapter to denouncing Grassley for asking inconvenient questions about Fusion and the dossier. The essentially fictitious story casts Simpson as Captain America":

Working to protect the republic at all costs from a Manchurian Candidate, with the First Amendment as his only shield, Simpson battles Congressional persecutors who were trashing the Bill of Rights by subpoenaing his bank to learn who funded the dossier.

Fusions founders target me, as then-counsel to Grassley, for supposedly pulling the strings that led to outing their secret. They had promised never to reveal who bankrolled the project. Why? Their book concedes a more strategic reason to stonewall: They wanted to control the larger political narrative.

As they write in Crime in Progress: If it came out too soon that the dossier had been paid for by the Clinton Campaign, that revelation would allow the Republicans to depict [Christopher] Steeles work as a partisan hit job. It was a fact that Fusion managed to keep secret for nearly 11 months after the dossier became public.

During those 11 months, Fusions clients denied their involvement, and Fusion fought to keep anything from coming to light that would contradict those denials. Grassley tried to learn more about the dossiers claims and Fusions involvement. Fusions founders claim they would have been willing to explain their past work without a protracted battle if Grassley had simply approached Fusion in good faith and asked.

Actually, we tried. When I called Simpson, he immediately refused to talk. He lawyered up. Hes also one of only two people who refused to cooperate with the inspector general. Without voluntary cooperation, prying any information loose would prove to be a challenge. Absent a full committee vote, no subpoena could be issued without Ranking Member Sen. Dianne Feinsteins agreement. Contrary to Fusions caricature of our efforts as hyperpartisan, we adopted those new rules in early 2017 to strengthen the committees hand in what we expected would be bipartisan oversight work during the Trump administration.

Feinstein was initially willing to question Fusion, but bipartisan efforts to look into the dossier and its allegations soon disappeared. In the beginning, she co-signed document requests to Fusion, which its founders misrepresent in their book as ominous partisan threats solely from Grassley. Feinstein also agreed to subpoena Simpson to testify at a public hearing in the summer of 2017, but he refused to appear, citing his Fifth Amendment rights. We later negotiated a limited voluntary interview in private, where he refused to answer questions on many topics, including who funded the dossier.

Feinstein increasingly began to resist any dossier-related line of inquiry. At the time, Grassley and his staff were unaware the Democratic National Conventions law firm had funded the dossier or that that a former Feinstein staffer, Daniel Jones, had privately claimed to the FBI that he raised $50 million from seven to 10 wealthy donors primarily in New York and California. That money reportedly funds Fusions ongoing postelection efforts to vindicate the dossier. Its unclear how much Feinstein and her staff knew about this at the time.

Grassley played it straight. He supported the Mueller investigation and bucked his own GOP leadership in the Senate to shepherd a bipartisan bill protecting Muellers independence through his committee. He worked to conduct vigorous oversight and ask tough questions of everyone, even threatening to subpoena Trumps son to ensure Democrats had an unlimited opportunity to question him on the record. Of course, Fusions narrative omits this evidence of good faith.

The House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Fusions bank records, and in late October 2017, its clients confessed to funding the dossier after it became clear they were going to lose in court. New York Times senior White House correspondent Maggie Haberman wrote, Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year. A nonpartisan, nonprofit organization complained to the Federal Election Commission that campaign disclosures falsely described payments to Fusion for opposition research as legal services.

During the court battle, Fusion unleashed a blizzard of filings in which it piled on new allegations of supposed congressional misconduct. The court rejected all of them.

One of the failed tactics that Fusion considered central was to argue that the House Intelligence Committee learned Fusion had an account at TD Bank from someone in Grassleys staff and to imply that was somehow improper. While it is true that we had asked about the bank during Simpsons voluntary interview on the Senate side, it is false to claim, as Fusion does, that we learned the banks name from his confidential interview and that the information was unavailable elsewhere.

Anyone reading the transcript (p. 17-18) can see that committee staff already knew the banks name and mentioned it first. Fusions attorney did not ask how we learned it, and we wouldnt have answered if he had. The committee protects whistleblowers and confidential sources, just as the press does. Fusion had apparently made little effort to keep its banks name confidential up to that point. Not only did Simpson voluntarily confirm it when asked, but we also had reason to believe he listed it on invoices to clients, so it was hardly a state secret.

Casting aspersion on the congressional investigators who forced the truth about the dossiers funding into the open is no more effective in Fusions book than it was in the court proceedings. In the end, its merely a distraction from the bigger issues with the dossiers unreliability, which go far beyond the partisan motives of its sponsors.

Although the special counsel and inspector general reports dealt devastating blows to its credibility, Simpson and Fritsch still maintain in their book that time will tell whether the dossier deserves to take its place among documents that have bent the course of history, such as the Pentagon Papers or the Warren Report. A more apt analogy might be the phony list of traitors hyped by McCarthy. But, unlike the Americans targeted in the dossier, a few of McCarthys victims actually were colluding with the Russians.

Jason Foster was chief investigative counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee for Sen. Charles Grassley from 2011 to 2018.

Originally posted here:
The lies and distortions by the hatchet men at Fusion GPS - Washington Examiner

Michael Thomas Nowak and Gregg Francis Smith object to the US authorities motion for a complete stay of the CFTC action against them.

About a week after the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed a set of documents with the Illinois Northern District Court arguing in favor of a complete stayof the CFTC action against Michael Thomas Nowak and Gregg Francis Smith, the traders have objected to the authorities arguments.

Lets recall that the CFTC charges the defendants with spoofing, engaging in a manipulative and deceptive scheme, and attempting to manipulate prices in the precious metals futures markets while employed at a major US bank. On December 13, 2019, the CFTC and the DOJ once again made clear their stance that the civil case should be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

On December 20, 2019, the defendants filed their response to the CFTC and the DOJ. Nowak argues that the stay of the civil case should not be complete and that instead it should be partial, and discovery should be allowed to proceed.

According to Nowak, contrary to the CFTCs assertions, his request for a stay that protects him from taking actions that might implicate his Fifth Amendment rights, such as responding to pleadings, answering interrogatories, or being deposed, in no way belies his assertion that he seeks to resolve this matter as expeditiously as is practicable.

Nowak argues that the defendants have a strong interest in expeditiously resolving serious civil charges brought against them by government agencies.

The trader notes that waiting to begin document discovery until the conclusion of the criminal case will significantly delay the resolution of this matter, particularly because document discovery is likely to be extensive. Commencing document discovery now will avoid undue delay, Nowak says.

In addition, Nowak argues that the CFTC has conducted a lengthy and extensive investigation and presumably obtained extensive evidence, none of which it has shared with the defendants. In that context, a proposal that both sides be permitted to engage in document discovery cannot reasonably be characterized as an attempt to gain a tactical advantage, he says.

The defendants urge the Court to reject the CFTCs arguments and deny the DOJs motion for a complete stay of the action.

According to the CFTC complaint, from at least 2008 and continuing through at least 2015, Nowak and Smith repeatedly engaged in manipulative or deceptive acts and practices by spoofing (bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution) while placing orders for and trading precious metals futures contracts on CME Group Inc.s exchanges. The defendants are alleged to have placed thousands of orders with the intention to cancel them in order to send false signals of increased buying or selling interest designed to trick market participants into executing the orders the defendants wanted filled. The complaint also alleges that Nowak and Smith engaged in spoofing with the intent to manipulate market prices and create artificial prices, and thereby enable their orders to be filled sooner, at a better price, or in larger quantities than they otherwise would.

In its action against Nowak and Smith, the CFTC seeks, among other things, civil monetary penalties, disgorgement, restitution, trading bans, and a permanent injunction against future violations of the federal commodities laws.

More:
Precious metals traders accused of spoofing insist stay of CFTC action should be partial - FinanceFeeds

If you watch Law and Order or many other TV shows, you already know something about Miranda warnings and taking the Fifth. The police have to Mirandize you, and even in court, you can say, I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself. There are limits of course, but most people think these rights are fundamental, acrossevery alleged crime. But does it work with taxes and the IRS?Not usually.

Many people find that a shock. Remember theIRS official Lois Lerner, who ran the IRS unit accused of targeting conservatives some years back? She didnt want to answer questions about alleged IRS targeting.As a result, she took the Fifth. Congress held her in contempt, but the governmentdeclined to prosecute her. It was all a controversial episode. Private taxpayers arent usually so lucky when it comes to their own tax returns and investigations.

In fact, merely invoking the Fifth in a tax case can invite penalties or get the IRS looking more harshly at you. Lets start with tax returns themselves. You have to file them and you have to report your income.Way back in 1927, the Supreme Court considered a man whorefused to file a tax return, claiming that to do so would incriminate him. InU.S. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court said that itwas too bad if disclosing illegal income opened him up to prosecution.

Even a criminal must file tax returns and pay taxes. After all, that is how they got Al Capone. You have to file a tax return, and you have to do it accurately.What if the IRS asks you questions you are afraid to answer? Answering IRS questions in an audit or investigation can be nerve-wracking.Do not speakup without your lawyer present, and ask your lawyer whatis fair to discuss. ButclaimingFifth Amendment protection in tax cases can be a mistake.

One of the biggest issues involves books and records. You have to keep them in order to fulfill your tax filing obligations. You even have to keep bank account records for accounts outside the U.S. Undisclosed offshore bank accounts can qualify as money laundering. So, if the IRS asks you if you have any foreign bank accounts, can you take the Fifth?

You can, but it probably wont help. Even if you claim the Fifth, the IRS can hand you an information document request to produce your records.You can refuse, but the IRS will issue a summons. If you refuse to answer that, the IRS will take you to court, whichwill probably order you to comply.But, doesnt your constitutional right to take the Fifth trump the IRS?

Not always. Ironically, you can refuse totalk, but youcannotrefuse to produce the documents. Your own private papers are personal records, and if they might incriminate you, they are protected by the Fifth Amendment.But the Required Records doctrinesays youmusthand over documents no matter how incriminating.The government requires you to keep certain records, and the government has a right to inspect them.

TheIRS and prosecutors have exploited this rule.It can mean thatpleading the Fifth in response to a subpoena for foreign account records can cause even more trouble than claiming it on your tax returns.Required records are those where the reporting has a regulatory purpose, where a person must customarily keep the records the record-keeping scheme requires him to keep, and the records have public aspects.

In the case of foreign bank records particularly, the courts uniformly deny Fifth Amendment protection.Numerous courts haveallgiven the IRS a free pass, rulingthat no Fifth Amendment protection applies.Despite repeated requests, the U.S. Supreme Court has been unwilling to hear this issue.

So, is it likely that the Fifth Amendment will be much help on your taxes? Not really. In most cases, a tax audit is civil and there is little risk that it will become criminal. However, just think about this: a majority of criminal tax cases come directly out of civil tax cases. The IRS civil auditors refer a case to the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. The IRS civil auditor will not tell you this is occurring, so the first time you hear about it, your case may have gone from bad to worse. That means having a lawyer and being careful can be wise.

Robert W. Wood is a tax lawyer and managing partner at Wood LLP. He can be reached at Wood@WoodLLP.com.

See the rest here:
Tax Laws: Can You Take The Fifth With The IRS? - International Business Times

Vuk Vujasinovic of VB Attorneys, who is part of the court-appointed lead team that took the case to trial and won, stated: "People living in the flood pools behind these dams sacrificed their homes to save the heart of Houston, and we are extremely pleased the judge agreed with us that they are entitled to compensation under the 5th Amendment to our constitution."Click here to learn more HurricaneHarveyLawsuitHelp.com.

The homeowners alleged the two dams stopped water that would otherwise have flowed from the project's location 17 miles west of downtown Houston, eastward into West Houston neighborhoods, Houston's central business district, and the industrial ship channel. The homeowners alleged the water backed up until it flooded over the thirteen test properties and over 10,000 homes and businesses located behind the dams.

The homeowners claimed the government's construction and operation of the Addicks and Barker project constituted a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, entitling them to compensation.

The government alleged Hurricane Harvey was a very large storm that it could not foresee when it built the dams in the 1940s, and denied owing compensation to any homeowners.

Judge Lettow held a 2-week trial in Houston, Texas, which concluded on May 17, 2019. Over 30 witnesses were called to testify, including property owners, experts in hydrology, meteorology, and real estate valuation, representatives of the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as officials with Harris County and Fort Bend County. The trial included an excursion with the Judge to personally view the entire Addicks and Barker project.

Mr. Vujasinovic notes the following major points were established at trial:

In his ruling, Judge Lettow held that the federal government's construction and operation of the Addicks and Barker project was a "taking" under the 5th Amendment, entitling the homeowners to compensation. "The court finds that the government's actions relating to the Addicks and Barker Dams and the attendant flooding of plaintiffs' properties constituted a taking of a flowage easement under the Fifth Amendment. Thus, the court finds defendant liable."

Mr. Vujasinovic anticipates a second phase of litigation for the thirteen test properties to determine the amount of compensation owed to each. Collective damages for the over 10,000 flooded properties are estimated to exceed $1 Billion.

According to Mr. Vujasinovic, "this trial victory will be instrumental in our efforts to obtain fair compensation for all our clients whose property was damaged or destroyed due to the Addicks and Barker project. We look forward to finishing this fight to enforce our clients' constitutional property rights."

About Vuk Vujasinovic Vuk Vujasinovic is part of the court-appointed lead team that won the test case trial. His firm represents homeowners in all impacted communities behind the dams, including Bear Creek, Twin Lakes, Lakes on Eldridge, Concord Bridge, Concord Colony, Canyon Gate Cinco Ranch, Charlestown Colony, Cinco at Willow Fork, Cinco Ranch Equestrian Village, Cinco Ranch Greenway Village, Cinco Ranch Meadow Place, Cinco Ranch Southpark, Concord Fairways at Kelliwood, Grand Lakes, Grand Lakes Phase Three, Grand Mission, Green Trails Oaks, Greens at Willow Fork, Jamestown Colony, Kelliwood Greens, Kingsland Estates, Lakes of Buckingham Kelliwood, Mayde Creek Farms, Park Harbor Estates, Parklake Village, Pine Forest, Savannah Estates, Stone Gate at Canyon Gate, and Windsor Park Estates.

About VB Attorneys Based in Houston, Texas, VB Attorneys handles cases throughout the country. To learn more about the firm, visit HurricaneHarveyLawsuitHelp.com and VBAttorneys.com, or call 888.695.6993.

Contact: Carlos Villarreal Phone: (888) 695-6993 Website:VBAattorneys.comEmail: Carlos@VBAttorneys.com

SOURCE VB Attorneys

http://www.vbattorneys.com

Excerpt from:
Homeowners Behind Addicks and Barker Dams in Houston, Texas Entitled to Compensation, Federal Judge Rules - PRNewswire

Key point: Questions have risen once again about what happened to one of America's most famous union bosses.

On July 30, 1975, Jimmy Hoffa, the former president of the Teamsters Union, disappeared.

Hed gone to a restaurant in suburban Detroit apparently expecting to meet a couple of mafia figures whom he had known for decades. Hed hoped to win their support for his bid to return to the unions presidency. A few customers remembered seeing him in the restaurant parking lot before 3 p.m.

Sometime after that he vanished without a trace.

The FBI has long assumed that Hoffa was the victim of a mob hit. But despite a decades-long investigation, no one has ever been charged with his murder. His body has never been found.

Yet even though his physical remains are missing, Hoffa lives on in our collective cultural consciousness.

Martin Scorseses The Irishman is only the latest film to offer a fictionalized version of Hoffas story. Before that there was Sylvester Stallones F.I.S.T. (1978), Danny DeVitos Hoffa (1992) and the made-for-TV movie Blood Feud (1983).

Hes been the subject of countless true crime books, most famously Charles Brandts I Heard You Paint Houses. He inspired an episode of The Simpsons. And he crops up in tabloids such as the Weekly World News, which claimed to have found him living in Argentina, hiding from the vengeful Kennedys.

Ever since I started researching and writing on the history of the Teamsters, people have asked me where I think Hoffas body is located. His story, Ive learned, is the one aspect of labor history with which nearly every American is familiar.

Hoffas disappearance transformed him from a controversial union leader into a mythic figure. Over time, Ive come to realize that Hoffas resonance in our culture has important political implications for the labor movement today.

The rise and fall of the Teamsters Teamster

Hoffa became a household name in the late 1950s, when Robert F. Kennedy, then serving as chief counsel for the Senate Rackets Committee, publicly grilled him about his mob ties.

While other witnesses avoided answering questions by invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, Hoffa, the newly elected leader of the nations largest and most powerful union, adopted a defiant stance. He never denied having connections with organized crime figures; instead, he claimed these were the kinds of people he sometimes had to work with as he strengthened and grew his union in the face of employer opposition. He angrily dismissed any allegations of corruption and touted the gains his union had won for its membership.

The verbal sparring between Kennedy and Hoffa became the most memorable part of the hearings.

To the benefit of big business, it turned Hoffa into a menacing symbol of labor racketeering.

But to his union members, it only enhanced his standing. They were already thrilled by the contracts Hoffa had negotiated that included better pay and working conditions. Now his members hailed him as their embattled champion and wore buttons proclaiming, Hoffa, the Teamsters Teamster.

His membership stayed loyal even as Hoffa became the target of a series of prosecution efforts.

After becoming attorney general in 1961, Kennedy created a unit within the Department of Justice whose attorneys referred to themselves as the Get Hoffa Squad. Their directive was to target Hoffa and his closest associates. The squads efforts culminated in convictions against Hoffa in 1964 for jury tampering and defrauding the unions pension fund. Despite that setback, Hoffas hold on the Teamsters presidency remained firm even after he entered federal prison in 1967.

When he finally did leave office, Hoffa did so voluntarily. He resigned in 1971 as part of a deal to win executive clemency from the Nixon administration. There was one condition written into the presidents grant of clemency: He couldnt run for a position in the union until 1980.

Once free, Hoffa claimed that his ban from union office was illegitimate and began planning to run for the Teamsters presidency. However, he faced resistance not from the government but from organized crime figures, who had found it easier to work with Hoffas successor, Frank Fitzsimmons.

Hoffas meeting at the restaurant on July 30, 1975, was part of his efforts to allay that opposition.

Clearly, things didnt go as planned.

Some theorize that the mafia had him killed in order to ensure that he would not run against Fitzsimmons in the Teamsters upcoming 1976 union election.

But after no arrests and multiple fruitless excavations to try to locate his body, Hoffas case remains, to this day, unresolved.

From man to myth

In Andrew Lawlers history of the Lost Colony of Roanoke, he writes, To die is tragic, but to go missing is to become a legend, a mystery.

Stories are supposed to have a beginning, a middle and an end. But when people go missing and are never found, Lawler explains, theyll endure as subjects of endless fascination. It allows their legacies to be re-written, over and over.

These new interpretations, Lawler observes, can reveal something fresh about who we were, who we are, and who we want to be.

The myth of Hoffa lives on, even though almost five decades have passed since that afternoon in July 1975.

What shapes has it taken?

To some, he stands for an idealized image of the working class a man whod known hard, manual labor and worked tirelessly to achieve his success. But even after rising to his leadership post, Hoffa lived simply and eschewed pretense.

As a Washington Post article from 1992 put it, He wore white socks, and liked his beef cooked medium well He snored at the opera.

Meanwhile, his feud with the Kennedys pitted a populist tough guy off the loading docks against the professional class, the governing class, the educated experts. The Washington Post piece ties Hoffas story to that of another working-class icon. Watching Hoffa go up against Bobby Kennedy was like watching John Henry go up against a steam hammer it was only a matter of time before he lost.

But Hoffas myth can also serve as a morality tale. The New Republic, for instance, described how Danny DeVitos 1992 film reworks Hoffas life into the story of an embattled champion of the working class who makes a Faustian pact with the underworld.

In the movie, Hoffas Teamsters are caught in hopeless picket line battles with mob goons who the anti-union employers have hired. In order to get those goons to switch sides, Hoffa makes a bargain with mafia leaders. But the mafia ultimately has Hoffa killed when he tries to defy their control, becoming the victim of his own unbridled ambition.

Finally, the underworlds mysterious role in Hoffas death keeps his story compelling for Americans who have a fascination with conspiracy theories. It supports the idea of an invisible cabal that secretly runs everything, and which can make even a famous labor leader disappear without a trace.

Hoffas story is often intertwined with theories about the Kennedy assassination that attribute the presidents murder to an organized crime conspiracy. Both Hoffa and Kennedys murders, in these accounts, highlight the underworlds apparently unlimited power to protect its interests, with tentacles that extend into the government and law enforcement.

Did Hoffa taint the labor movement?

Over two decades after he went missing, a 1997 article in The Los Angeles Times noted that No union in America conjures up more negative images than the Teamsters.

This matters, because for most Americans who lack first-hand knowledge about organized labor, Hoffa is the only labor leaders name they recognize. And as communications scholar William Puette has noted, the Teamsters notoriety is such that for many people in this country the Teamsters Union is the labor movement.

A union widely perceived as mobbed up with a labor leader notorious for his Mafia ties has come, in the minds of some Americans, to represent the entire labor movement. That perception, in turn, bolsters arguments against legislative reforms that would facilitate union organizing efforts.

The other themes in Hoffas myth have similar negative implications for labor. He represents a nostalgic, white, male identity that once existed in a seemingly lost world of manual work. That myth also implies that the unions that emerged in those olden times are no longer necessary.

This depiction doesnt match reality. Todays working class is diverse and employed in a broad spectrum of hard manual labor. Whether youre working as a home health aide or in the gig economy, the need for union protection remains quite real.

But for those working-class Americans who see their society controlled by a hidden cabal of powerful, corrupt forces like the puppet masters who supposedly had JFK and Hoffa killed labor activism can appear quixotic.

For these reasons, the ghost of Jimmy Hoffa continues to haunt the labor movement today.

[ Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter. ]

Read the original:
Does Netflix's The Irishman Reveal What Really Happened To Jimmy Hoffa? - The National Interest Online