Mediaboss Marketing

Special Counsel John Durham continues to drop bombshells in filings in the prosecution of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. Just last week, Durham defeated an effort by Sussmann to dismiss the charges. He is now moving to give immunity to a key witness while revealing that the claims made by the Clinton campaign were viewed by the CIA as not technically plausible and user created. He also revealed that at least five of the former Clinton campaign contractors/researchers have invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to cooperate in fear that they might incriminate themselves in criminal conduct. Finally, Durham offers further details on the involvement of Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias and former British spy Christopher Steele in the alleged false claims.

The only witness currently immunized by the government, Researcher-2, was conferred with that status on July 28, 2021 over a month prior to the defendants Indictment in this matter. And the Government immunized Researcher-2 because, among other reasons, at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination. The Government therefore pursued Researcher-2s immunity in order to uncover otherwise-unavailable facts underlying the opposition research project that Tech Executive-1 and others carried out in advance of the defendants meeting with the FBI.

Durham also detailed how the false Russian collusion claims related to Alfa Bank involved Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias and Christopher Steele. Indeed, the new requested immunized testimony would come from a Tech executive who allegedly can share information on meetings with Elias and Steele.

Durham notes that both the CIA and FBI were sent on an effective wild goose chase by the Clinton campaign. He notes that the government found the allegations to be manufactured and not even technically possible. He refers to the CIA in the following passage:

Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not technically plausible, did not withstand technical scrutiny, contained gaps, conflicted with [itself], and was user created and not machine/tool generated.

This dovetails with the statements of the Clinton associates themselves who were worried about the lack of support for the Russian collusion claims. Researcher 1 features prominently in those exchanges.

According to Durham, the Alfa Bank allegation fell apart even before Sussmann delivered it to the FBI. The indictment details how an unnamed tech executive allegedly used his authority at multiple internet companies to help develop the ridiculous claim. (The executive reportedly later claimed that he was promised a top cyber security job in the Clinton administration). Notably, there were many who expressed misgivings not only within the companies working on the secret project but also among unnamed university researchers who repeatedly said the argument was bogus.

The researchers were told they should not be looking for proof but just enough to give the base of a very useful narrative. The researchers argued, according to the indictment, that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic would poke several holes in that narrative, noting that what they saw likely was not a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1, but a red herring, according to the indictment.

Researcher-1 repeated these doubts, the indictment says, and asked, How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Lets assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our best case scenario. You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.

Researcher-1 allegedly further warned, We cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny. The only thing that drives us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]. This will not fly in eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?

It appears that the time to regroup has passed with the issuance of immunity deals to compel testimony.

Here is the filing:

US-v-Sussmann-04162022-US-Filing

Like Loading...

Visit link:
Durham: Five Witnesses Connected to the Clinton Campaigns False Russian Claims Have Refused to Cooperate Under the Fifth Amendment - Jonathan Turley

The U.S. government Thursday filed a civil action in federal court in Portland against drone distributor HobbyKing to collect a $2.8 million fine for selling and marketing unauthorized communication devices for drones.

The Federal Communications Commission determined that HobbyKing marketed to U.S. customers at least 65 models of audio visual transmitters that were not certified by the federal agency and would not have a legitimate amateur radio use.

The certification requirement ensures that radio frequency equipment does not interfere with federal government operations, such as the Federal Aviation Administrations aeronautical radar systems. Fifteen of the 65 models created a threat to public safety, according to the civil complaint.

The federal regulatory commission also found that the drone transmitters were marketed to drone enthusiasts and not to licensed radio amateurs.

The Federal Communications Commission sent the company a letter on Nov. 1, seeking full payment of the fine within 30 days, according to the complaint. The amount remains unpaid, the complaint said.

The government is seeking $2.8 million for HobbyKings violations and $39,278 for the companys failure to respond to the commissioners orders, plus interest.

The company has argued to federal regulators that there are no marketing rules that specifically address versatile drone equipment capable of both amateur and non-amateur frequencies and that it had no notice that its marketing was unlawful.

The company also argued that responding to the agency would violate its Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the amount of the fine should be reduced due to the companys inability to pay, according to court records.

The Federal Communications Commission rejected the companys arguments, saying its rules prohibit the marketing of radio frequency devices unless the devices have first been labeled and authorized consistent with the commissions rules.

HobbyKing is the trade name of several companies based in the U.S., including ABC Fulfillment Services and Indubitably, Inc., as well as a Hong Kong-based company, Hextronik. All of the companies are associated with a man named Anthony Hand.

The complaint is filed in Oregon because Indubitably, Inc.s principal place of business is Portland and the companies engaged in business in Oregon, according to the complaint.

-- Maxine Bernstein

Email mbernstein@oregonian.com; 503-221-8212

Follow on Twitter @maxoregonian

Read this article:
Feds go to court in Portland to collect $2.8M fine against HobbyKing for marketing unauthorized drone transmi - OregonLive

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Vega v. Tekoh, a case about Miranda rights. I flagged a super-interesting historian's amicus brief in the case last week, and I wanted to offer some broader thoughts. I plan to break down my thoughts into a few posts. In this post, I wanted to start with the first question in Tekoh as a matter of precedent. If you take the Court's seriously, which way do the cases take you?

You'll recall, from my prior post, that this is the case asking if a plaintiff has a civil remedy against an officer under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for obtaining a statement inadmissible under Miranda that was later admitted. The case raises two issues. First, is a civil remedy available in such circumstances? Second, who can be sued if this happens?

In this post, I want to explain why I think that, as a matter of precedent, the Ninth Circuit got it right. Under the Court's caselaw, the wrongful admission of a statement made in violation of Miranda violates a person's Fifth Amendment rights and should be actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In future posts, I hope to take on other aspects of the case, such as the causation question.

On to the analysis. As a matter of precedent, it seems to me that the first question has a clear answer that was provided correctly in Judge Eric Miller's typically excellent opinion for the Ninth Circuit below. The logical chain runs like this:

Put those three steps together, and there's a constitutional cause of action for a wrongful admission of a statement.

As I understand the officer's argument, especially in the newly-filed reply brief, the main counter is to challenge point 2, that Miranda is a constitutional rule. At least, sort of. Vega treats Miranda as both a constitutional decision and not part of the constitution at all. Miranda is a constitutional decision in the sense that Dickerson said it was, and it applied in Dickerson, which involved a motion to suppress. But Miranda is not part of the constitution at all other than that, in the officer's view, because there are a lot of decisions, especially pre-Dickerson, calling Miranda "prophylactic."

In Vega's view, a "prophylactic" rule is assumed to be a rule that isn't actually part of the constitution at all, as compared to a rule required by the constitution to protect the underlying constitutional right. So you end up, in Vega's telling, with Miranda being both a constitutional decision and not part of the constitution at the same time. Miranda ends up as a rule of evidence for constitutional purposes, but not something that can support a civil suit for constitutional purposes.

To me this seems a pretty odd position. It's constitutional law as quantum physics: Miranda becomes like light, which is both a wave and a particle. Of course, I get the subtext. If the current Supreme Court had decided Dickerson anew, a majority of the current Court very well might have gone the other way and said Miranda was merely a supervisory powers case that can be nullified by legislation. As a tactical matter, then, an argument that doesn't make much sense here might very well work: If you don't think Miranda was on solid ground, then maybe a weird argument that limits it is more appealing than a good argument that doesn't. So I get that.

But as a matter of precedent, it seems to me that Dickerson said what Dickerson said. Unless you want to overturn Dickerson, which Vega isn't asking the Court to do, you have to treat it as the constitutional decision it said it was. And it seems to me that Dickerson ultimately rejected the underlying premises of Vega's argument, and a lot of what Vega is arguing was settled the other way by Dickerson.

Vega presents a different picture, of course. Vega tries to make post-Dickerson caselaw look inconsistent with the natural reading of Dickerson. For example, Vega suggests that the Court treated Miranda as "prophylactic" even after Dickerson in cases like Chavez and Patane. Putting aside the debate over just what "prophylactic" means (and here's a very good article by David Strauss on how useless a term that is), I don't think it's right to suggest that the Court treated Miranda rules as not part of the Fifth Amendment after Dickerson.

Here's what happened, it seems to me. Following Dickerson, Justices Thomas and Scalia, the two Dickerson dissenters, continued writing Miranda opinions using the basic framing of their Dickerson dissent. In some of the cases, there were five votes for the results Justices Thomas and Scalia reached. Presumably, Chief Justice Rehnquist assigned Justice Thomas to try to write the majority opinion in those cases. But Justice Thomas didn't get a majority. So he ended up wring a plurality opinion in Patane, joined by Rehnquist and Scalia, as well as a judgment of the Court in Chavez joined in relevant part only by Rehnquist.

Vega's reply brief relies a lot on those Thomas opinions. They get treated as authoritative guides to the true meaning of Dickerson, and thus the true meaning of Miranda. But from the standpoint of precedent, it seems to me, they're just the views of three Justices that didn't command a majority of the Court. And given that their language often echoes the Dickerson dissent, they seem like puzzling guides to understand the majority opinion in Dickerson.

In his reply brief, Vega suggests that the fact that Chief Justice Rehnquist signed to to these opinions post-Dickerson is meaningful because, although Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented in Dickerson, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the Dickerson majority opinion."Any doubt about what the Court meant in Dickerson is resolved," Vega says, "by how its authorChief Justice Rehnquistsubsequently treated Miranda in Chavez." By joining the opinion in Chavez that said Miranda was prophylactic, Vega says, Rehnquist must have signaled the true meaning of Dickerson: "There is no reason to credit Tekoh's interpretation of Dickerson over Chief Justice Rehnquist's."

But c'mon. Majority opinions of the Supreme Court are not the property of their individual authors. They do not have secret meanings later uncovered by what their authors individually later said or signed on to. The opinions have to stand on their own. That's particularly relevant here given that claims have been made that Chief Justice Rehnquist didn't really mean what he said in Dickerson. I don't know if that accusation is true. But whether it is true or false, Rehnquist's later actions can't somehow undo what the Opinion of the Court he authored in Dickerson actually said or means.

If you take precedent seriously, it seems to me, Dickerson answered the first question of Tekoh in Tekoh's favor.

Full disclosure: I have previously discussed this case with counsel for Tekoh, although of course all views here are entirely my own.

Read the original post:
Thoughts on Vega v. Tekoh, the Pending Miranda Case Before SCOTUS: The Precedent Question - Reason

SHREVEPORT, La. (KTAL/KMSS) A former co-defendant of the two men on trial for second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit second-degree murder in the death of Shreveport Police Officer Chatri Payne refused to testify Thursday when called to the stand.

Lawrence Pierre, 24, was originally scheduled to go on trial with co-defendants, 29-year-old Travion Anderson and 41-year-old Glenn Frierson, but on the morning the trial was set to begin, he pleaded guilty. In exchange, the prosecution dismissed the conspiracy to commit murder charge.

Pierre was then taken to jail, and the trial for his former co-defendants began. Since the trial began, however, the prosecution has presented as much evidence against Pierre as it has against Anderson, who lived with Payne and their 2-year-old daughter in the home at 1633 Midway where Payne was shot and mortally wounded in January 2019.

Very little evidence has been presented against Frierson, Paynes cousin, who it is believed dropped off Pierre on a nearby street just before Payne was shot and picked up Pierre shortly after the shooting.

Pierre was subpoenaed by the state and by both defense attorneys, but it was not until Thursday Day 9 of the trial that he was called to testify.

Throughout the trial, defense attorneys have expressed a desire to question Frierson, and his non-presence in the proceedings has left a huge gap because, for more than three years, the prosecution has been building a case around three co-defendants.

Before the jury was brought in, Pierre, wearing the black and white stripes of a convicted murderer, leg irons, shackles, and handcuffs attached to a wide brown belt, shuffled in, accompanied by a CPSO deputy.

As Pierre took a seat in the witness chair between the jury box and Judge John Mosely. His former defense attorney in the murder case, Edward Mouton, stood between Pierre and Judge John Mosely on the bench.

Mouton announced to the court that, contrary to media reports, Pierre did not agree to testify and would take the Fifth Amendment if he was asked questions.

He will fight, he will not cooperate, Mouton said.

Prosecutor Ron Stamps disagreed and said he would dismiss any charges that might be pending against Pierre as a result of his testimony, adding that it was not Moutons place to answer for Pierre.

Mouton again argued in favor of the Fifth Amendment and again Stamps said, It is our position that he does not have the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment. At that point, Mosely agreed, telling Pierre and Mouton that the Court agrees, the defendant does not have Fifth Amendment rights.

Andersons attorney, John Bokenfohr, chimed in his agreement, calling Pierres refusal to cooperate outrageous.

After the jury was led in and Stamps began questioning Pierre, he was defiant, refusing to answer questions pulled from his own guilty plea, answering each time, I prefer not to answer, as Mouton stood by his side, watching.

And each time Pierre answered, I prefer not to answer, Mosely jumped in saying, You have no Fifth Amendment rights.

Still, Pierre repeated to the judge, I prefer not to answer.

After Stamps gave up and tendered Pierre to the defense attorneys, Pierre gave the same response to Bokenfohrs questions, which was followed by a reminder from the judge that he had no Fifth Amendment rights, to which Pierre again gave his I prefer not to answer response.

When Friersons attorney, Mary Harried, took the stand, she asked Pierre several questions regarding past statements by Pierre that Frierson, his cousin, had nothing to do with Paynes death; that Frierson did not know when he dropped off Pierre that he was going to the home where Payne was killed a few minutes later, nor was he aware what had happened when he picked up Pierre on another street after Payne was shot.

Again, to every question, Pierre answered, I prefer not to answer, and again Mosely told him he had no First Amendment rights.

Harried eventually grew weary of the situation and gave up.

Pierre was taken back to jail, where he is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole, or suspension of sentence, and court was adjourned until Monday morning.

See original here:
Former co-defendant defies judges orders to testify in cop slaying trial - KTALnews.com

Since the January 6 committee was formed last July to investigate the events surrounding the attack on the Capitol, a not-insignificant number of Donald Trumps allies have refused to cooperate, deciding theyd rather risk being charged with contempt of Congress than provide information that would undoubtedly cast the former president in a negative light. Two people who have surprisingly not followed that trend? His son-in-law and his daughter, the latter of whom spent a large chunk of time chatting with the committee last week.

Yes, following in Jared Kushners footsteps, Ivanka Trump reportedly spent nearly eight hours voluntarily testifying before the House select committee on Tuesday. While its unclear what the former first daughter told investigators, committee vice chair Liz Cheney said on Sunday that Ivankas testimony was helpful, during an interview in which the Wyoming representative, who has been castigated by her follow Republicans for speaking out against the 45th president, also said that it was absolutely clear that Trump knew his actions were unlawful but did it anyway. As The New Republic notes, eight hours is a lot of time for probing questions and answers, and Ivanka has unique insight into what her father was up to on January 6, as well as the days leading up to it. The committee presumably now knows what she was willing to share.

While Kushnerwho provided valuable information during his seven-plus hours of testimony late last month, according to committee member Elaine Luriawas traveling on the day of the actual attack, Ivanka was not only in the White House but reportedly pressed her father to stop the violence on at least two occasions. In a letter sent to the former first daughter in January, the committeewrotethat she was in the Oval Office during a phone call between her father and Mike Pence on the morning of January 6, when the then president reportedly accused his V.P. of not having the courage to block the certification of Bidens win. In testimony before the panel, Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general who served as Pences national security adviser, said that after the president claimed Pence wasnt tough enough to overturn the results, Ivanka countered that Mike Pence is a good man. (For her part, Ivanka tweeted, the violence must stop, during the riot. She also initiallyaddressedthe people attacking the Capitol as American patriots, so there's that.)

Obviously, theres no reason to believe that Ivanka would give the committee the kind of information that could lead to her father, say, going to prison, but her and Kushners willingness to speak with the panel and not invoke their Fifth Amendment rights is notable. Theres also the matter of a CNN report from June alleging that a chilliness had developed between the couple and the ex-president, supposedly, in part, over the couples annoyance that he wouldnt shut up about the 2020 election. The other thing thats important to remember is that Jared and Ivankas go-to move while working in the administration was to literallyflee the sceneany time there was blowback over Trump doing something particularly bad, even for him, in the obvious hope people would forget they were senior advisers to the president. So if telling the committee what they knoweven if it hurt Ivankas dear old dadwould help them? Well that seems like something theyd be happy to do.

If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, clickheretosubscribe.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

Fox News Hosts Entertained Putin-Friendly Talking Points. Then Their Colleagues Were Killed in Ukraine The Life and Confessions of Mob Chef David Ruggerio Kremlin Keeps Blurring Its Red Line Around Nuclear War Calls for Recusals, Resignations, and Even Impeachment: Democrats Escalate Ethics Campaign Around Clarence Thomas Two Ukrainian AP Journalists Capture the Most Devastating Moments of War Trump: If I Was President Id Threaten to Drop a Nuclear Bomb on Russia What Will Dems Do If Biden Doesnt Run? Orgies, Beheadings, Jewish Space Lasers: Everything Kevin McCarthy Has Had to Speak to Republican Lawmakers About The Truth Behind Republicans Vile Questioning of Ketanji Brown Jackson From the Archive: Molly Blooms House of Cards Not a subscriber? Join Vanity Fair to receive full access to VF.com and the complete online archive now.

Continued here:
Ivanka Trump Provided Helpful Testimony to the 1/6 Committee Investigating Her Father - Vanity Fair