Mediaboss Marketing

Glenn Simpson, whose Fusion GPS firm has been tied to anti-Trump efforts and pro-Russian lobbying, will not talk to lawmakers in response to a subpoena, the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committe said Friday.

Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., confirmed in a statement that they subpoenaed Simpson to appear before the committee Wednesday as part of a hearing about the influence of foreign lobbying in last year's presidential election.

"Simpsons attorney has asserted that his client will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to the subpoena," Grassley and Feinstein said.

Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson is seen at the Aspen Security Forum in Aspen, Colo. Friday (Pam Browne/Fox News)

During the campaign, Fusion GPS contracted former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele to look into rumors about Trump's financial and social connections in Russia. The resulting "dossier," which was leaked to the media following Trump's victory in November included a number of sordid allegations about the president's sexual proclivities.

Last week, Fox News reported that Fusion GPS had ties to Russian efforts to undermine U.S. sanctions that were led by attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya.

Investment manager Bill Browder claims Simpson was hired by one of Veselnitskaya's clients, Prevezon Holdings, as part of an effort to repeal the Magnitsky Act, named for Sergei Magnitsky an attorney for Browder who was beaten to death in a Moscow prison after accusing Russian authorities of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars through tax refunds and then laundering the money through New York banks.

Veselnitskaya became the center of a political storm earlier this month after Donald Trump Jr. made public emails indicating that he had taken a meeting with her on the promise of receiving damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

Grassley and Feinstein also noted that both Trump Jr., who met with Veselnitskaya in June of last year, and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, who sat in on the meeting, are negotiating their appearances and the possibility of turning over documents, but left open the possibility that the pair would be subpoenaed.

Fusion GPS has said it had nothing to do with the Trump Jr.-Veselnitskaya meeting.

Fusion GPS learned about this meeting from news reports and had no prior knowledge of it. Any claim that Fusion GPS arranged or facilitated this meeting in any way is absolutely false, the company said in a statement.

Manafort had attracted scrutiny for months from congressional committees and Mueller. The Associated Press reported in June that Mueller's probe has incorporated a long-standing federal investigation into Manafort's financial dealings. That investigation is scrutinizing political consulting work he did for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and the country's former president, Viktor Yanukovych.

Manafort has denied any wrongdoing related to his Ukrainian work, saying through a spokesman that it "was totally open and appropriate."

Manafort also recently registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent for parts of Ukrainian work that occurred in Washington. The filing under the Foreign Agents Registration Act came retroactively, a tacit acknowledgement that he operated in Washington in violation of the federal transparency law.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read this article:
Co-founder of firm behind Trump-Russia dossier to plead the Fifth - Fox News

Heres a story that has gone completely under the radar, and raises some serious questions that the mainstream media largely seems to have ignored. Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, whose firm commissioned the salacious and mostly unsubstantiated Russia Trump dossier, plans to plead the Fifth after being subpoenaed by U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

According to documents obtained byLawNewz,attorneys for Fusion GPS Simpson sent a letter to Chairman Chuck Grassley expressing concern over the direction that the hearing was taking. The letter stated that Simpson would not voluntarily show up at the hearing due to a pre-planned vacation, and if subpoenaed he would exercise his First and Fifth Amendment rights not to testify before the committee examining the influence of foreign lobbying in the 2016 election.

Since March, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been seeking documents and information from Fusion GPS about the former M16 intelligence officer Christopher Steele who authored the research, and the dossier, which contained unverified salacious details of Trumps alleged escapades in Russia.The dossier was reportedly first commissioned by Republican opponents of Donald Trump, and then taken over by a Democratic client.

Every time committee investigators made requests, though, they were stonewalled by the Washington D.C. opposition research firm. The firm asserted that the information and documentation requested was protected by the First Amendment privilege of Fusion GPS and its clients, as well as confidentiality agreements and attorney client privilege. On Friday, Sen. Grassley slapped Simpson with a subpoena to appear before the committee.

Given the limitless scope of the hearing, as well as the privileges that Fusion GPS has already asserted, Mr. Simpson cannot risk a waiver of those privileges at the hearing. In the event of a subpoena, Mr. Simpson will assert applicable privileges, including but not limited to those under the First and Fifth Amendments, attorneys for Simpson wrote in a letter to the committee.

The Fifth amendment privilege, of course, allows witnesses to decline to answer questions that have the potential to incriminate them. So, the question remains, what exactly could Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal investigative reporter, say that he fears will put him in legally precarious territory?

It could mean various things, but the invocation on its own does not mean Simpson broke any laws. It could just as easily be a tactical move by his lawyers to try and secure a deal before he testifies, Bradly Moss, a national security expert and attorney toldLawNewz.com.

Questions about this to the communications firm representing Fusion GPS were not answered as off press time.

This article has been updated with legal commentary.

Read more here:
What The Heck? Man Who Runs Firm Behind Trump-Russia Dossier to Plead the Fifth - LawNewz

Can a court order a suspect to use the suspects fingerprint to unlock his or her smartphone? Or would that violate the suspects Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination? I wrote about that issue here. This post updates the previous one with two new cases and some additional discussion.

Background. The Fifth Amendment provides in part that no person may be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This privilege against self-incrimination applies during the investigative phase of a case as well as at trial. And it applies to the disclosure of information that may lead to incriminating evidence even if the information is not itself directly indicative of guilt. However, it applies only to testimonial activity, not to nontestimonial actions like providing fingerprints, blood samples, or voice exemplars. The act of producing evidence that is not itself testimonial may have a compelled testimonial aspect, as when the act of producing the evidence constitutes an admission that the evidence was in the suspects possession or control. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000) (ruling that tax fraud charges must be dismissed because the charges were based on documents the defendant produced in response to a grand jury subpoena; the defendants act of producing the documents was testimonial because the collection and production of the materials demanded was tantamount to answering a series of interrogatories asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of any incriminating documents; [t]he assembly of those documents was like telling an inquisitor the combination to a wall safe, not like being forced to surrender the key to a strongbox).

Smartphones are often secured by passcodes or fingerprint sensors. Ive written about computer passwords, which present the same Fifth Amendment issues as passcodes, here and here. In brief, some courts view compelling a suspect to provide a passcode as requiring a testimonial act because the passcode is contained in the suspects mind, and because providing the passcode may constitute an admission that the phone belongs to the suspect or is under the suspects control. That doesnt necessarily mean that a court can never order a suspect to provide a passcode. If the court concludes that it is obvious that the phone in question belongs to the suspect so that the act of providing the passcode wouldnt further incriminate the suspect, the court may rule that the suspects knowledge of the passcode is a foregone conclusion, rendering the Fifth Amendment inapplicable. Or the court might rule that the suspect may be required to provide the passcode if given immunity for the act of providing it. Both those possibilities involve complex legal questions that I hope to explore in a future post.

Although passcodes present thorny Fifth Amendment issues, the early authority on point regarding fingerprint sensors suggests that compelling a suspect to use his or her finger to unlock a phone is not testimonial. The suspect is required only to do a physical act placing his or her finger on a sensor and need not admit anything in his or her mind. My earlier post cited the authority available at that time, but we have some new case law now and it points in the same direction.

New cases. The most significant new case is State v. Diamond, __ N.W.2d __, 2017 WL 163710 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2017). The court ruled that a court order compelling a criminal defendant to provide a fingerprint to unlock the defendants cellphone does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.

In brief, the police arrested a burglary suspect and found that he was in possession of a cell phone. They obtained a search warrant for the phone and a court order requiring the suspect to provide a fingerprint to unlock the phone. On appeal, the defendant argued that this violated his Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. The reviewing court disagreed because the order did not require the defendant to do anything that was testimonial. The court observed that the order did not require him to disclose any knowledge he might have and reasoned that it was no different than an order to provide a voice exemplar or a blood sample.

Less important but also worth noting is State v. Stahl, __ So. 3d __, 2016 WL 7118574 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2016). Stahl is a case about a courts authority to order a suspect to provide the passcode to a phone, not a fingerprint. But in the course of discussing the passcode issue, the court stated: Compelling an individual to place his finger on [an] iPhone would not be a protected act; it would be an exhibition of a physical characteristic, the forced production of physical evidence, not unlike being compelled to provide a blood sample or provide a handwriting exemplar.

Caveat. Although requiring a suspect to press the suspects finger to a phone may not require any testimonial activity, orders on this point must be crafted carefully to avoid infringing on a suspects constitutional rights. An order requiring a suspect to unlock a phone, or to provide officers with an impression from the finger that unlocks a phone, might implicate the Fifth Amendment because such an order would require the suspect to decide which finger to use and so to share the suspects knowledge of which finger operates the sensor. Unless the foregone conclusion doctrine applies or the Fifth Amendment issue can be removed through the provision of appropriate immunity, such an order might be improper.

Worthwhile secondary sources. I cited a couple of secondary sources in my previous post. Id like to add to the list two blog posts by Professor Orin Kerr, a leading scholar in this area. His principal post on the topic is here, and a shorter one discussing the Diamond case is here.

Link:
Update on Fingerprints, Phones, and the Fifth Amendment ...

The co-founder of the Washington-based firm that commissioned the explosive and largely unsubstantiated anti-Trump campaign research dossier will reject a Senate subpoena to testify before Congress next week and invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, according to the heads of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Glenn Simpson, the former Wall Street Journal reporter who helped start political intelligence firm Fusion GPS, has been a key figure in the Russian election meddling saga ever since the dossier, which alleged a years-long Kremlin conspiracy to elect Donald Trump and included colorful sex stories, was leaked to the press after the Republicans November victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Since March, the Senate Judiciary Committee has pressed for Mr. Simpsons testimony and documents relevant to the case. His attorneys, Joshua A. Levy and Robert F. Muse, have rebutted with numerous defenses, including citing confidentiality agreements between Fusion GPS its clients. This week, a Judiciary hearing which would have featured Mr. Simpson had he voluntarily attended was canceled.

Late on Friday committee leadership executed hardball tactics to force him to tell what he knows as chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, and ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, announced theyd subpoenaed him.

Glenn Simpson, through his attorney, has declined to voluntarily attend Wednesdays Judiciary Committee hearing regarding compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the senators wrote in a statement. Therefore, a subpoena has been issued to compel his attendance. Simpsons attorney has asserted that his client will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to the subpoena.

Mr. Simpsons lawyers in a letter reported by Politico, argued that this hearings purported focus on FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] is pretext for an exploration of Fusion GPS reported work, on behalf of other clients, to investigate the ties of Donald J. Trump, his campaign and their associates to Russia.

Wednesdays committee hearing is also scheduled to feature Donald Trump Jr. and President Donald Trumps one-time campaign manager Paul Manafort.

On Friday, Mr. Grassley and Ms. Feinstein said both Trump confidantes had agreed to negotiate to be interviewed and provide relevant documents but the Senators also reserved the right to subpoena them if necessary.

Legal battle to continue

More legal battle is expected between Mr. Simpson and the committee.

Washington insiders woke Saturday debating whether the political operatives strategy to assert his Fifth Amendment rights to protect himself against self-incrimination - would hold up or if hed put himself at risk of being held in contempt of Congress, which could mean future criminal charges.

Deeper digging into the dossier could also be embarrassing for both Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. Simpson hired former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele in 20015 to compile opposition research on then-candidate Trump. The resulting dossier which was reportedly sourced from the Kremlin allegedly received initial financial support from anti-Trump Republicans before being taken over and distributed by Democrats. It contained a lurid and largely discredited tale of a years-long Russian effort to elect the former reality TV star and property developer.

The Trump White House has vigorously denounced the allegations as a pile of garbage and FAKE NEWS! ever since online news service BuzzFeed posted all 35 pages.

This week The Washington Times reported that the FBI is routinely using the dossier as a checklist that agents tick off as they question witnesses in its Russia investigation. Sources told The Times it was strange that a gossip-filled series of memos is guiding the bureaus work.

For months Mr. Grassley has pushed to learn more about Mr. Steeles FBI relationships, which allegedly date back to help the former British spy provided the bureaus investigation of FIFA chief Sepp Blatter, whose 17-years reign over the football World Cup governing body ended amid corruption allegations.

Former FBI Director James Comey, whom Mr. Trump fired in May, has refused to publicly answer questions about the bureaus relationship with Mr. Steele.

Additional drama next week is expected from Mr. Trump Jr. and Manaforts testimony. Democrats are eager to question both about a meeting they held last year with a Russian lawyer who promised to provide comprising information about Ms. Clinton. Republicans are keen to start clearing the air on an issue that has distracted Washington from Mr. Trumps agenda.

On Friday, Reuters reported it had found public records contradicting statements by the lawyer who met Mr. Trump Jr. and Mr. Manafort that shed never worked for the Russian government. The news agency found Natalia V. Veselnitskaya had once represented Russias top intelligence agency, the F.S.B., which replaced the K.G.B. after the fall of the Soviet Union.

See the original post here:
Boss of firm behind anti-Trump dossier to plead the Fifth at congressional hearing - Washington Times

The Second Circuit yesterday became the first court of appeals to address a criminal appeal regarding the governments investigation into the manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). Its decision in United States v. Allen reversed the convictions of two former Rabobank employees accused of using their roles in the banks LIBOR submission process to rig the global interest benchmark, and not only reversed the convictions but dismissed the operative grand jury indictment. The court concluded that the government had improperly used the defendants compelled testimony against them, holding that the Fifth Amendments prohibition on the use of compelled testimony applies even when the testimony was compelled by a foreign sovereign. The decision may well have a significant impact on the increasing number of extra-territorial investigations conducted by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), in which it partners with foreign agencies to investigate and prosecute cross-border activity.

The pair Anthony Allen and Anthony Conti were initially investigated by the United Kingdoms Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). During the investigation Allen, Conti, and other Rabobank employees were interviewed by the FCA; Allens and Contis interviews were compelled by threat of imprisonment, though they were granted direct use immunity. The FCA later brought an enforcement action against one of their co-workers, Paul Robson, disclosing relevant evidence against him, including Allens and Contis compelled testimony. During this exchange, Robson reviewed the materials over the course of two or three successive or nearly successive days, admitting to having underlined, annotated, and circled certain passages of both Allens and Contis testimony. But, in short order, the FCA then dropped the case and the DOJ stepped in.

A grand jury returned indictments against Allen and Conti in 2014, charging both with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and several counts of wire fraud. Robson was the sole source of certain material information for the indictment, including the source of testimony provided by FBI agent to the grand jury that Allen and Conti had participated in rigging LIBOR.

Before trial, the defendants moved under Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), to dismiss the indictment or suppress Robsons testimony. The Supreme Courts decision in Kastigar held that the government may compel testimony from witnesses, in spite of their invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, where it confers immunity from use of that testimony and evidence derived therefrom in a subsequent criminal case. The upshot is that the government must show in cases where such testimony is at issue that its proof rests on evidence other than the compelled statements and the fruits thereof. The district court in this case resolved that it would instead address any Kastigar concerns i.e., issues regarding the use of compelled testimony under Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause at trial.

The pair were convicted. After a post-trial Kastigar hearing, the district court held that Robsons reading, marking up, and annotating the compelled testimony, and the fact that material parts of the FBI agents grand jury hearsay testimony had been derived solely from Robson, were not enough to taint the evidence Robson provided because the government had shown an independent source for such evidence, to wit, [Robsons] personal experience.

The Second Circuit disagreed. It held first that the Fifth Amendments prohibition on government use of compelled testimony in American criminal proceedings applies, even when a foreign sovereign is the actor that compelled the testimony, noting that Amendment protects against the use and derivative use of compelled testimony against an accused in such a proceeding.

Second, it held that when the government attempts to use a witness like Robson, who has been substantially exposed to a defendants compelled testimony, it is the governments burden under Kastigar to show, at a minimum, that the witnesss review of the compelled testimony did not shape, alter, or affect the evidence used by the government.

It third held that a witnesss bare, generalized incantations that reviewing those materials did not taint his or her testimony (as was the case here via leading questions of Robson at the Kastigar hearing, which produced nothing more than bare, self-serving denials from Robson) are insufficient to meet this burden of proof.

And it lastly it had no trouble concluding that introducing testimony provided by Robson a key cooperator and prominent witness before the trial and grand jury (via a hearsay presentation) was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. Robsons had been the only testimony refuting Allens and Contis central argument that they had not actually engaged in rigging the LIBOR benchmark. This finding as to testimony both at trial and before the grand jury resulted in the dismissal of the indictments against Allen and Conti.

The Court rejected the governments counterarguments, including that prohibiting the use in United States Courts of testimony compelled by a foreign authority could seriously hamper the prosecution of criminal conduct that crosses international borders, by among other things, inadvertently or negligently obstructing federal prosecutions. The court noted that this risk already exists within our own constitutional structure, and that the practical outcome of our holding today is that the risk of error in coordination falls on the U.S. Government (should it seek to prosecute foreign individuals), rather than on the subjects and targets of cross-border investigations.

Original post:
Fifth Amendment Concerns Result in Overturned Convictions in First ... - Lexology (registration)