6:47 AM 8/16/2019 Autopsy Findings Raise Questions About Jeffrey Epstein’s Death | Jeffrey Epstein’s bodyguard: ‘Somebody helped him’ kill himself | Autopsy Shows Bones in Jeffrey Epstein’s Neck Were Broken | Autopsy Finds Jeffrey Epstein Had Broken Hyoid Bone in Neck, Source Tells NBC News Michael Novakhov – SharedNewsLinks℠
6:47 AM 8/16/2019
Autopsy Findings Raise Questions About Jeffrey Epstein’s Death | Jeffrey Epstein’s bodyguard: ‘Somebody helped him’ kill himself | Autopsy Shows Bones in Jeffrey Epstein’s Neck Were Broken | Autopsy Finds Jeffrey Epstein Had Broken Hyoid Bone in Neck, Source Tells NBC News
Trump and Trumpism
6:35 AM 8/16/2019 – Saved Stories – In 50 Brief Posts | Saved Stories – In 50 Posts on RSS Dog
Saved Stories |
|---|
| “organized crime and intelligence” – Google News: The FBI could fight far-right violence if they wanted to – but they don’t – The Guardian |
| Fri, 16 Aug 2019 06:10:15 -0400 The FBI could fight far-right violence if they wanted to – but they don’t The GuardianThere are currently 52 federal terrorism laws available to address entirely domestic acts of political violence. |
| “organized crime and terrorism” – Google News: The FBI could fight far-right violence if they wanted to – but they don’t – The Guardian |
| Fri, 16 Aug 2019 06:09:41 -0400 The FBI could fight far-right violence if they wanted to – but they don’t The GuardianThere are currently 52 federal terrorism laws available to address entirely domestic acts of political violence. |
6:13 AM 8/16/2019 – The FBI could fight the far-right if they wanted to – but they don’t | Mike German | Opinion
Michael Novakhov – SharedNewsLinks℠ | Michael Novakhov – SharedNewsLinks℠ – on RSS Dog| Michael Novakhov – SharedNewsLinks℠ – In Brief | Trump Investigations News In Brief – http://feed.informer.com/share/CGD4YTZW07 | Trump Investigations News – Page Link – News In Brief | Tweets | Videos | Michael Novakhov – SharedNewsLinks℠ – Page
| Michael Novakhov – SharedNewsLinks℠ | ||
|---|---|---|
| The FBI could fight the far-right if they wanted to – but they don’t | Mike German | Opinion | ||
Federal law enforcement officials have all the tools necessary to address far-right violence proactively – as my own successful investigations as an FBI undercover agent in the 1990s indicate. They have simply chosen as a matter of policy not to prioritize these cases. What role racism, latent or overt, plays in these decisions has yet to be explored.
There are currently 52 federal terrorism laws available to address entirely domestic acts of political violence. Congress has also passed five federal hate crimes statutes specifically designed to punish the types of violence white supremacists and other far-right militants often commit against vulnerable communities. Organized crime and conspiracy statutes can also be used to dismantle white supremacist gangs.
When white nationalists commit deadly attacks like the El Paso shooting, these crimes fit the statutorydefinition of domestic terrorism. Terrorism remains the FBI’s top priority. It ranks hate crimes fifth and organized crime sixth, however. So, when FBI agents or federal prosecutors initially label far-right violence as hate crimes, or gang crimes, they de-prioritize these cases, limiting the available resources and narrowing the scope of the investigations.
Worse, as a matter of policy, the justice department defers the vast majority of hate crimes to state and local police and prosecutors, who are often ill-equipped or uninterested in pursuing these cases. Justice department crime victim surveys estimate there are approximately 230,000 violent hate crimes annually, yet federal prosecutors charge only about 25 hate crimes defendants each year. State and local law enforcement, however, are not picking up the slack. Only about 12% of state and local law enforcement agencies report hate crimes occurring in their jurisdictions, and in some states, reported hate crimes are rarely prosecuted as such.
These deficiencies in the law enforcement response to hate crimes are not new. And a justice department-funded study in 2000 examining the barriers to hate crime reporting identified fear of the police as the primary reason victims refuse to report. This is unsurprising: the communities targeted by white supremacist violence are often disproportionately targeted by police violence and abuse as well.
It is easy to paint white supremacy as an extreme ideology relegated to the fringes of our society. The violence these fringe actors inflict on our society tears at the social fabric, but it represents just a tiny fraction of the 17,000 annual homicides in the US. It is a manageable problem when law enforcement and our government leaders focus on reducing it. Historically, they have chosen not to.
The legacy of our government’s official sanction of white supremacy continues to linger, particularly infecting our criminal justice system and immigration policies. The FBI remains an overwhelmingly white, male organization, which may partly explain why it would treat white supremacist violence as a less serious concern than an imaginary Black Identity Extremist movement. Recent reportsdocumenting law enforcement cooperation with violent far-right groups and antipathy toward their victims at riotous demonstrations in Sacramento, California, and in Portland, Oregon, demand investigation to see what role bias plays in the police response.
Though the justice department and FBI officials have claimed renewed interest in tackling white supremacist violence, their actions raise continued concerns about how they are using counterterrorism authorities.
More troubling, recent reporting that revealed the active participation of police officers in white supremacist groups and racist social media activity by a small but significant number of police officersand border patrol officials makes clear that overt and organized racism continues to fester within agencies sworn to protect the public safety as well. The FBI has repeatedly warned its agents about white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement, urging caution about sharing sensitive intelligence about domestic terrorism cases. But it has taken few concrete actions to protect communities of color from these racist officers. Given this disturbing reality, giving law enforcement greater domestic terrorism powers may not be the safest or most effective solution.
So what is Congress to do?
Policymakers and intelligence analysts need better data regarding the scope of white supremacist violence in this country and around the world in order to craft more effective responses. A number of pending bills require the justice department to provide this information.
We need a new approach, not deeper investments in failed methods.
Our latest Brennan Center report urged Congress to find ways the federal government can fund programs designed to repair the communal injuries that hate violence inflicts, by building social inclusion through investments in education, social services, and employment. When white supremacists use violence to divide us, our response should be designed to empower the victimized communities, not just the police.
… like you, are reading and supporting The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever before. And unlike many new organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford. But we need your ongoing support to keep working as we do.
The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the escalating climate catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.
Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power.
We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism, to maintain our openness and to protect our precious independence. Every reader contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.
 |
The Guardian.| Michael Novakhov – SharedNewsLinks℠ | ||
|---|---|---|
| The FBI could fight the far-right if they wanted to – but they don’t | Mike German | Opinion | ||
Federal law enforcement officials have all the tools necessary to address far-right violence proactively – as my own successful investigations as an FBI undercover agent in the 1990s indicate. They have simply chosen as a matter of policy not to prioritize these cases. What role racism, latent or overt, plays in these decisions has yet to be explored.
|
Federal law enforcement officials have all the tools necessary to address far-right violence proactively – as my own successful investigations as an FBI undercover agent in the 1990s indicate. They have simply chosen as a matter of policy not to prioritize these cases. What role racism, latent or overt, plays in these decisions has yet to be explored.
There are currently 52 federal terrorism laws available to address entirely domestic acts of political violence. Congress has also passed five federal hate crimes statutes specifically designed to punish the types of violence white supremacists and other far-right militants often commit against vulnerable communities. Organized crime and conspiracy statutes can also be used to dismantle white supremacist gangs.
When white nationalists commit deadly attacks like the El Paso shooting, these crimes fit the statutorydefinition of domestic terrorism. Terrorism remains the FBI’s top priority. It ranks hate crimes fifth and organized crime sixth, however. So, when FBI agents or federal prosecutors initially label far-right violence as hate crimes, or gang crimes, they de-prioritize these cases, limiting the available resources and narrowing the scope of the investigations.
Worse, as a matter of policy, the justice department defers the vast majority of hate crimes to state and local police and prosecutors, who are often ill-equipped or uninterested in pursuing these cases. Justice department crime victim surveys estimate there are approximately 230,000 violent hate crimes annually, yet federal prosecutors charge only about 25 hate crimes defendants each year. State and local law enforcement, however, are not picking up the slack. Only about 12% of state and local law enforcement agencies report hate crimes occurring in their jurisdictions, and in some states, reported hate crimes are rarely prosecuted as such.
These deficiencies in the law enforcement response to hate crimes are not new. And a justice department-funded study in 2000 examining the barriers to hate crime reporting identified fear of the police as the primary reason victims refuse to report. This is unsurprising: the communities targeted by white supremacist violence are often disproportionately targeted by police violence and abuse as well.
It is easy to paint white supremacy as an extreme ideology relegated to the fringes of our society. The violence these fringe actors inflict on our society tears at the social fabric, but it represents just a tiny fraction of the 17,000 annual homicides in the US. It is a manageable problem when law enforcement and our government leaders focus on reducing it. Historically, they have chosen not to.
The legacy of our government’s official sanction of white supremacy continues to linger, particularly infecting our criminal justice system and immigration policies. The FBI remains an overwhelmingly white, male organization, which may partly explain why it would treat white supremacist violence as a less serious concern than an imaginary Black Identity Extremist movement. Recent reportsdocumenting law enforcement cooperation with violent far-right groups and antipathy toward their victims at riotous demonstrations in Sacramento, California, and in Portland, Oregon, demand investigation to see what role bias plays in the police response.
Though the justice department and FBI officials have claimed renewed interest in tackling white supremacist violence, their actions raise continued concerns about how they are using counterterrorism authorities.
More troubling, recent reporting that revealed the active participation of police officers in white supremacist groups and racist social media activity by a small but significant number of police officersand border patrol officials makes clear that overt and organized racism continues to fester within agencies sworn to protect the public safety as well. The FBI has repeatedly warned its agents about white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement, urging caution about sharing sensitive intelligence about domestic terrorism cases. But it has taken few concrete actions to protect communities of color from these racist officers. Given this disturbing reality, giving law enforcement greater domestic terrorism powers may not be the safest or most effective solution.
So what is Congress to do?
Policymakers and intelligence analysts need better data regarding the scope of white supremacist violence in this country and around the world in order to craft more effective responses. A number of pending bills require the justice department to provide this information.
Policymakers and intelligence analysts need better data regarding the scope of white supremacist violence in this country and around the world in order to craft more effective responses. A number of pending bills require the justice department to provide this information.
We need a new approach, not deeper investments in failed methods.
Our latest Brennan Center report urged Congress to find ways the federal government can fund programs designed to repair the communal injuries that hate violence inflicts, by building social inclusion through investments in education, social services, and employment. When white supremacists use violence to divide us, our response should be designed to empower the victimized communities, not just the police.
- Michael German, a former FBI agent, is a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program and the author of Disrupt, Discredit and Divide: How the New FBI Damages Democracy
… like you, are reading and supporting The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever before. And unlike many new organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford. But we need your ongoing support to keep working as we do.
The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the escalating climate catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.
Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power.
We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism, to maintain our openness and to protect our precious independence. Every reader contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.
Speaking with intimate knowledge of the lockup where Jeffrey Epstein was held, ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani says he considers the financier’s death perplexing.
Giuliani said Tuesday on “The Ingraham Angle” he knew the setup of the floor the convicted sex offender was held on and had been inside the facility at least 20 times in his former roles as a prosecutor and defense attorney.
“I don’t like conspiracy theories,” Giuliani told guest host Jesse Watters. “I don’t think we should engage in them yet because we need to know the facts, but the whole thing is completely incredible to me.”
Giuliani said Epstein, whose private island, Little Saint James, U.S.V.I., was recently raided by federal agents, was the, “most high-risk prisoner in that facility” and should have been better monitored.
“I’ve been in [the Metropolitan Correctional Center] probably 20 times as a prosecutor and a defense lawyer,” he recalled. “I watched it being built.”
“He was virtually unprotected,” the personal attorney to President Trump added.
Giuliani claimed there were several potential ways Epstein could have been killed, if not for his apparent suicide.
“He could kill himself, prisoners could kill him because they don’t like alleged perverts … and don’t like people who might cooperate,” he said.
However, the ex-mayor said he is very hopeful the federal government will get to the bottom of the alleged sex trafficker’s death.
“I have tremendous confidence in Attorney General Barr,” he said.
Epstein was reportedly on “special observation watch” at the time of his apparent suicide Saturday morning, but the stringent protocols associated with the watch were not followed, officials said, revealing yet another apparent procedural lapse at the Manhattan lockup — which on Tuesday afternoon was assigned a new warden “pending the outcome of the investigations” into the financier’s death.
Fox News’ Paulina Dedaj contributed to this report.
When Congress initiated impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon 45 years ago, the House Intelligence Committee didn’t exist.
Now, Democrats plan to use the panel — and its access to the nation’s most closely guarded counterintelligence secrets — to help guide a potential impeachment of President Donald Trump, according to Democratic aides.
Story Continued Below
The Intelligence Committee’s involvement could provide Democrats with more evidence against Trump that could strengthen their case against him.
The intelligence panel’s role is a sign of the unprecedented nature of the questions surrounding Trump’s relationship with Russia, as well as the uncharted territory House Democrats find themselves in as they consider whether to formally recommend Trump’s removal from office.
Typically, impeachment proceedings are the province of the House Judiciary Committee — and the panel, led by Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), has taken the lead in a nascent legal fight that its members say could lead to articles of impeachment. But Nadler isn’t going it alone.
Sources involved in the process say Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) signed off on the panel’s legal strategy and suggested approaches that would closely bind the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees together as the process unfolds. Allegations that Trump welcomed Russian interference in the 2016 election while pursuing a business deal in Moscow have taken center stage for Schiff’s panel.
“In a case as unique as Trump, it is important to consider the totality of the evidence, including classified information,” said a source close to Schiff. “We’ve been working closely with the Judiciary Committee throughout this process and will continue to provide support as needed.”
AdChoices
ADVERTISING
A spokesman for California Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the Intelligence panel, did not respond to a request for comment. Schiff declined to comment for this story.
The relationship between the committees became clearest in the Judiciary Committee’s request last month for a federal judge to release reams of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s secret evidence, collected through the use of a grand jury. House lawyers have said the committees require this information to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against Trump.
“In light of the nature of the special counsel’s investigation and [the House Intelligence Committee’s] jurisdiction over intelligence and counterintelligence-related matters,” the House’s grand-jury petitionstates, “the Judiciary Committee will seek [the Intelligence Committee’s] assistance in reviewing grand jury materials and other evidence and in assessing whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president.”
Traditionally, an impeachment process has involved the public airing of allegations and evidence against a sitting president. But counterintelligence information, by its nature, is classified and cannot be publicly released or discussed — presenting lawmakers with a new challenge when making the public case for Trump’s ouster.
“The Constitution doesn’t contemplate the notion of having a classified portion of an impeachment process, and it would be political malpractice to try to pursue such a drastic remedy without fully informing the public of the complete factual record,” said Bradley Moss, a prominent national security attorney. “If articles of impeachment are pursued, the House will have to rely upon unclassified information or, as a last resort, use its own Article I authority to disclose otherwise classified information.”
Others noted that the House would have to weigh taking the extraordinary step of revealing classified information if it felt that information contained in secret files were crucial to prove their case.
Story Continued Below
“It’s going to be a challenge because if they were to bring articles of impeachment and get to the point where there’s a trial, ostensibly the president should be able to see all the evidence against him,” said Asha Rangappa, a former FBI counterintelligence agent. “Are they willing to make that tradeoff? They would need to work with the CIA and allies to get particular sources to safety if they’re human sources. They would have to be willing to dry up particular methods of collection because they would be getting exposed. That would be a decision they would need to make.”
The committee has the option to disclose classified information, but it has only been used once in its history: under Nunes’ leadership, when his staff drafted a memo intended to cast doubt on the origins of the investigation of Russia’s links to the Trump campaign. The process, laid out in the House rules, allows lawmakers to reveal classified information if the full House deems it in the public interest, even over the objection of the president. But in Nunes’ case, Trump, over public protests of the FBI, ultimately opted to declassify the material.
Similarly, grand-jury evidence is sensitive and kept secret by law, with few exceptions. The Intelligence Committee is well suited to handle such materials, and its involvement could alleviate concerns about grand-jury information being leaked.
“The Intelligence Committee’s ability to handle high levels of classification — that’s what they’re designed to do. And because of that, what they can do is they can sign in and sign out anyone who needs to review it. They can create a record of who looks at the material,” said Mieke Eoyang, a former subcommittee staff director for the panel, adding: “We don’t people who have a history of dealing with this at a presidential level.”
One former Judiciary Committee official said the Intelligence Committee’s involvement could assuage a court’s concern about how grand jury information would be handled.
“It’s possible, but unproven, that this collaboration may give the legal arguments more jet fuel in the courts for grand jury document access,” said Julian Epstein, who was on the Democratic staff of the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment process.
The Intelligence Committee, which was created as an outgrowth of the Watergate era to police the intelligence community, was never intended as a vehicle for impeachment. The process of drafting articles of impeachment is well outside the panel’s traditional jurisdiction. But in this unique case, Schiff’s committee would review the sensitive grand-jury information related to volume one of Mueller’s report, which details Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.
In addition, the panel could provide Nadler’s staff with documents and testimony gleaned as part of its own probes and its general oversight of the intelligence community. The Intelligence Committee — first under Republican leadership in 2017 and then Democratic leadership this year — conducted dozens of interviews with witnesses connected to the Mueller investigation.
Schiff has remained aligned with Speaker Nancy Pelosi in opposing a formal impeachment inquiry, opting to rely on the evidence-gathering process to guide lawmakers. But in signing off on the Judiciary Committee’s court filings and actively suggesting language to bolster its legal arguments, the chairman could be signaling a shift.
Story Continued Below
In an MSNBC interview last week, Schiff said the House could move forward with articles of impeachment as soon as fall if the White House continues to stonewall congressional inquiries to the point of dragging out the various court fights.
“If the litigation takes too long — that is, if they are able to legally string this out too long — we will have to make a judgment about whether to go forward with articles of impeachment, even in the absence of being able to bring these witnesses in and obtain these documents, because the obstruction of Congress itself will have risen to that level,” Schiff said.
Next Page of Stories
Loading…
Page 2
On the morning of Jeffrey Epstein’s death there was shouting and shrieking from his jail cell, a source familiar with the situation told CBS News. Corrections officers attempted to revive him while saying “breathe, Epstein, breathe.”
Congress is the latest to start investigating Epstein’s apparent suicide over the weekend, with new reports raising questions about the federal jail where he was being held. One of Epstein’s guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night he died was reportedly not a regular corrections officer.
On Monday, Attorney General William Barr criticized the detention center where the disgraced financier was held. “We will get to the bottom of what happened and there will be accountability,” Barr said. “I was appalled and frankly angry to learn of the MCC’s failure to adequately secure this prisoner.”
Government investigators raided the alleged sex trafficker’s private island in the Virgin Islands Monday.
With Epstein gone, potential co-conspirators involved in his alleged sex-trafficking network are shifting into focus. British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell is one of four women accused of recruiting underage girls for sex. She’s denied those claims in the past and has not been charged with a crime. Maxwell is said to be Epstein’s ex-girlfriend turned business associate. Her current location is unknown.
“She was more of a partner in his obsession, really,” said Miami Herald reporter Julie Brown, who spent more than two years looking into Epstein’s controversial 2008 plea deal. “And there are allegations that she was involved in having sex with some of these girls as well.”
Court documents from 2011 reveal Epstein controlled several apartments in a building just blocks from his $77 million New York townhouse and allegedly housed “underage girls from all over the world.”
Court documents from 2011 reveal Epstein controlled several apartments in a building just blocks from his $77 million New York townhouse and allegedly housed “underage girls from all over the world.”
Barr also issued a stern warning for anyone who may be evading justice: “Let me assure you that this case will continue on against anyone who was complicit with Epstein. Any co-conspirators should not rest easy. The victims deserve justice and they will get it.”
CBS News has learned that Epstein’s estranged brother Mark was called and he identified Epstein’s body. The New York City Medical Examiner’s office has performed an autopsy, but the results are still pending.
In an interview with our West Palm Beach affiliate WPEC-TV, a former Florida corrections worker said Epstein was “treated like a celebrity” during his 13-month stint in a county jail after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to charges of soliciting a minor for prostitution. She claims his cell was regularly left unlocked and she saw him move freely through the dormitory area — sometimes completely naked — without repercussions.
© 2019 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
From #TelegramGate to #RickyLeaks: Puerto Rico is on
Boing Boing (blog)–Jul 23, 2019
Your browser does not currently recognize any of the video formats available. Click here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 …
Puerto Rican Resistance Began Long Before Rosselló
Truthout–Aug 13, 2019
Misogyny didn’t just spew out of the governor’s mansion with this #Telegramgate scandal; it has shown up in his policies too. In 2017, Rosselló …
Telegramgate And The Necessity Of Thorough Coverage
Patheos (blog)–Aug 4, 2019
We need to talk about Telegramgate. And more specifically, on the real dangers of an overemphasis on it which makes it possible for us to miss …
794 × 590
periodicolaperla.com
San Juan – Diversos funcionarios, alcaldes e integrantes de varios sectores de la sociedad se reúnen el martes en una Cumbre de Seguridad en el Centro de Convenciones de Puerto Rico para…
Next Page of Stories
Loading…
Page 3
1214 × 712
The Trump Investigations – Blogger.com
240 × 239
Trump and Trumpism
900 × 789
Trump and Trumpism
700 × 394
The FBI News Review – Blogger.com
Images may
Next Page of Stories
Loading…
Page 4
Federal investigators working at the behest of prosecutors from the Southern District of New York gathered evidence through at least June of this year pertaining to David Pecker and American Media Incorporated’s (AMI) ties to Saudi Arabia and its Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), according to a report from Mother Jones.
The report, which was based on two anonymous sources with direct knowledge of the situation, said investigators started interviewing AMI employees and requesting document from the corporation that may be linked to special edition of the National Enquirer released in March of 2018 exclusively dedicated to lauding the Saudi leader. According to one of the sources, the FBI was investigating whether AMI entered into an agreement to illegally peddle influence for the benefit of a foreign power.
The investigation began after Amazon CEO and owner of The Washington Post Jeff Bezos accused the Nation Enquirer, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, attempted to blackmail him over the Post’s inexorable coverage of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder and unrelenting criticism of MBS who reportedly ordered the killing.
While the Saudi’s and MBS reportedly targeted Bezos out of revenge for the Khashoggi reporting, AMI was allegedly willing to facilitate the scheme as a way for Pecker to ingratiate himself to the Saudi ruler and further his business interests in the country.
While no charges have been filed at this time, the report notes that there could be significant repercussions for Pecker and AMI if the company is implicated in any scheme to peddle illegal influence for a foreign power because of the company’s recent deal with the Department of Justice.
In September of last year, five months before the alleged extortion scheme took place, AMI entered into a plea agreement for its role in facilitating hush money payments to women during the 2016 presidential campaign.Both AMI and Pecker, a longtime friend of President Donald Trump, were granted immunity in exchange for information about Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen, who was eventually sentenced to three-years in prison for campaign finance violations.
“As a part of the agreement, AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election,” read a 2018 SDNY press release. However, if prosecutors determined that AMI provided “false, incomplete, or misleading testimony or information” the company would be “subject to prosecution for any federal criminal violation of which the Office has knowledge, including perjury or obstruction of justice.”
Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti told Mother Jones that if the allegations against AMI and Pecker were true, they should be very worried.
“If you’re a party to a non-prosecution agreement, you should expect you should be investigated if there’s any hint of wrongdoing,” Mariotti said. “If there are any allegations or suspicions about AMI, there are going to be investigations.”
[image via Brian Ach/Getty Images]
Signed in as Michael_Novakhov
Share this story on NewsBlur
Shared stories are on their way…
Did Douglas Leff Manufacture The Case Of Julia Keleher, and why? – Google Search | ||
Douglas Leff: Brief Psychological Portrait as the impressions from the photograph. – By Michael Novakhov – 10:18 AM 8/6/2019 – Post Link
 This guy looks too complex, too smart, too ambitious, and too psychopathic |
NEW YORK (AP) — He testified for O.J. Simpson’s defense, helped investigate the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., hosted an HBO show and brought his pathology expertise to bear on celebrity deaths and police killings.
Comments
Post a Comment