FBI: "Riva did it! Cleopatra did it! It was their Gamble and their Landmark Phony-Maloney-Baloney! Putin did it! We are innocent" M.N.: "Until proven guilty". | FBI Ordered to Find Out Which Agency Disobeyed White House in Secret Deal, Finds Out It Was Itself ... | Jack Smith has "a lot more evidence" about Donald Trump—Bill Barr | FBI searched foreign intelligence database for information on US ... | Donald Trump indicted: Jack Smith tests limits of First Amendment in Jan. 6 prosecution
#FBI
— Emergent Perspective (@_emergent_) August 3, 2023
To be followed up with... pic.twitter.com/l3csRurKJd
FBI Ordered to Find Out Which Agency Disobeyed White House in Secret Deal, Finds Out It Was Itself
Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that an unknown federal agency had breached official White House policy and used secretive methods to conduct a business deal with the NSO Group, a blacklisted spyware vendor known for selling powerful surveillance tools. The agency in question not only brazenly disobeyed the government’s official policy, but had also used a front company to facilitate the deal, suggesting that it knew what was happening was not exactly kosher.
After the Times’ story was published, the FBI was ordered by the Biden administration to investigate. Now, several months later, the bureau’s investigation is complete, and it turns out that the agency that disobeyed the White House and purchased the creepy NSO tool was…the FBI.
Yes, the New York Times now reports that the bureau has admitted that it was the mystery agency at the center of the controversy several months back. However, America’s top law enforcement agency is also trying to explain away its involvement, claiming that it was somehow duped into the deal without any knowledge of what was going on.
For years, the NSO Group has been tied to spying scandals all over the world. In November of 2021, the company was blacklisted by the U.S. government and placed on the Commerce Department’s Entity List, a roster of foreign firms that have been deemed as working contrary to American interests. Being placed on this list effectively ends most investment opportunities involving U.S. businesses or government agencies. The government officially announced that NSO’s blacklisting was part of “the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to… stem the proliferation of digital tools used for repression.”
However, five days after the White House announced this policy change, a secretive federal contractor called Riva Networks finalized a deal with NSO to acquire a geolocation tool known as “Landmark.” The tool was supposed to help federal law enforcement triangulate the locations of specific mobile users. Riva had previously worked with the FBI to acquire a spying cool called “Phantom” that could reportedly hack any phone in the U.S. (At the time of this prior deal, the Times reported that the bureau had been considering using “Phantom” for domestic spying but the FBI claimed it was just doing “counterintelligence” work on foreign surveillance tools.) In the contracts for both deals, the FBI used a cover name for Riva, dubbed “Cleopatra Holdings,” while Riva’s CEO, Robin Gamble, used a pseudonym, going by “William Malone.”
If all this cloak and dagger stuff would seem to suggest that the FBI knew what it was doing, bureau officials are now saying that they were somehow tricked by Riva into the “Landmark” deal and that the tool was used on its behalf without them knowing about it. Indeed, the government claims that the tool was used by the U.S. “unwittingly” and that Riva “misled the bureau,” goading them into believing it was an “in-house” tool rather than NSO’s product. Somewhat comically, the FBI also seems to be claiming that it did not find out that Riva had procured the NSO tool until it read about it in the New York Times back in April. After the agency discovered that Riva was using “the spying tool on its behalf,” the contract with the company was terminated by FBI Director Christopher Wray, U.S. officials recently told the newspaper.
Why was the FBI interested in geolocation at all? According to FBI officials who spoke with the Times, they were looking for “fugitives.” They also claim that the government merely gave Riva phone numbers to chase down and that the contractor did all the actual NSO-aided spying itself. A statement provided to the newspaper reads partially:
“As part of our mission, the FBI is tasked with locating fugitives around the world who are charged in U.S. courts, including for violent crimes and drug trafficking. To accomplish this, the FBI regularly contracts with companies who can provide technological assistance to locate these fugitives who are hiding abroad…The FBI has not employed foreign commercial spyware in these or any other operational endeavors. This geolocation tool did not provide the FBI access to an actual device, phone or computer. We will continue to lawfully utilize authorized tools to protect Americans and bring criminals to justice.”
Even if the FBI’s story is to be believed, it still leaves a whole lot of questions. Why is it that the bureau was so unaware of what was happening with this particular deal? Why would Riva Networks blatantly mislead the government as it is alleged? Is it typical for the FBI to farm out surveillance work to contractors like this? You’d think that America’s top police agency would be a little bit more on top of its own operations than this.
Former Attorney General Bill Barr believes that Special Counsel Jack Smith will bring forward more charges against Donald Trump to try and prove the former president was well aware he lost the 2020 election.
Barr, who resigned as attorney general in December 2020 after Trump continued to push false voter fraud claims even after the Department of Justice said there was no evidence, told CNN's Kaitlan Collins that the four charges Trump is accused of in the former president's latest indictment are just the "tip of the iceberg" and that Smith has "a lot more evidence" against him.
Trump was indicted for the third time this year under Smith's investigation into the events which led up to the January 6 attack, and is due to be arraigned at a Washington, D.C. federal courthouse on Thursday on charges of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.
Trump has denied all wrongdoing and continues to falsely claim the last election was "rigged" against him. The frontrunner in the 2024 GOP presidential primary also has accused Smith of "election interference" with his federal investigation.
When asked by Collins if he believes that Trump was well aware that he had lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden fairly—a key part of the prosecution's case against the former president—Barr replied: "At first, I wasn't sure, but I have come to believe that he knew well that he had lost the election.
"What I think is important is that the government has assumed the burden of proving that. The government, in their indictment, takes the position that he had actual knowledge that he had lost the election and the election wasn't stolen through fraud. And they're going to have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, it's a high bar.
"Now that leads me to believe that they were only seeing the tip of the iceberg. That's one of the things that impressed me about the indictment. It was very spare, and there are a lot of things [Smith] could have said in there. And I think there's a lot more to come and I think they have a lot more evidence as to President Trump's state of mind."
Trump's legal team has been contacted for comment via email.
Legal experts have suggested that federal prosecutors may have a difficult time in proving Trump is guilty unless they can show criminal intent and that Trump was aware he was taking part in a conspiracy or committing fraud with his words and actions.
"The prosecution even says in the indictment every American has a right to speak publicly about an election and to make claims that might not be true. But what they're saying is that Trump took that a step too far," Joshua Ritter, a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, told Newsweek.
"They'll have to prove what was happening in Trump's own mind, and that's very difficult, short of an incriminating statement of motive coming out of his own mouth."
Trump's own lawyer, John Lauro, said that Trump had every right to dispute the election results under the First Amendment and therefore cannot face prosecution over it.
That claim was dismissed by Barr during his CNN interview.
"I really don't think that's a valid argument," Barr told Collins. "As the indictment says, they're not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can even tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better.
"But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy," he added. "All conspiracies involve speech, and all fraud involves speech. Free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy."
A similar First Amendment defense was made by Trump in a post on Truth Social. "The Radical Left wants to Criminalize Free Speech!" he wrote.
Former President Donald Trump's latest indictment by the Department of Justice has prompted his lawyer to repeatedly point to the First Amendment as his primary line of defense, saying it provides "an almost absolute protection."
Special counsel Jack Smith revealed four felony charges against Trump on Tuesday, including three conspiracies and one count of obstructing or attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. Prosecutors allege Trump continued to peddle lies about the outcome of the 2020 election despite knowing that he lost.
HARRIS STEPS INTO THE SPOTLIGHT WITH BIDEN AT THE BEACH
From left to right: Former President Donald Trump and special counsel Jack Smith."These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false," the 45-page indictment read. "But the defendant repeatedly and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election."
While the indictment also spelled out Trump's free speech rights to claim the election was stolen, prosecutors claim the former president went a step too far when he pursued "unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes," including alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, and 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Trump's attorney in the latest indictment, John Lauro, told NPR that prosecutors "have to prove corrupt intent" under 18 U.S.C. 1512, which is the obstruction statute.
"And corrupt intent means that you don't believe in, not only that you don't believe in the position that you're advancing, but you're doing it for a corrupt purpose, you're doing it to obstruct a government function rather than a truth-seeking function," Lauro said.
FILE - Attorney John Lauro exits Brooklyn federal court following a news conference on Aug. 15, 2007, in New York. Lawyers for Donald Trump were meeting Thursday, July 27, 2023, with members of special counsel Jack Smith's team as a potential indictment loomed over the former president's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, according to a person familiar with the matter. The meeting included Trump lawyer John Lauro, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to The Associated Press to describe a private gathering.. (AP Photo/ Louis Lanzano, File)The attorney also defended his client by citing so-called advice given to Trump by lawyer John Eastman, who told Trump there were legal means to delay the certification of the election.
"The president was told, given advice, that under these circumstances, the state legislatures have the ultimate ability to qualify electors. He followed that advice," Lauro said in a separate interview with CNN on Wednesday.
In part of the indictment, prosecutors allege Trump and Eastman asked Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel to help the Trump campaign recruit so-called "fake electors" in seven battleground states and claimed they "falsely represented" that the electors would only be used if Trump's various lawsuits against the election results succeeded.
But prosecutors have sought to poke holes into the notion that Trump's claims of election fraud were an entirely "truth-seeking function," as the indictment lists names including former Vice President Mike Pence, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and several other former administration officials who all said there was no amount of meaningful election fraud that could have altered the results of the 2020 election.
Trump's own words are also cited as part of prosecutors' attempts to claim Trump knew that his election fraud claims were false. "When the Chairman and another advisor recommended that the Defendant take no action because Inauguration Day was only seventeen days away and any course of action could trigger something unhelpful, the Defendant calmly agreed, stating 'Yeah, you're right, it's too late for us. We're going to give that to the next guy,'" page 31 of the indictment reads.
President Donald Trump speaks in the Rose Garden of the White House, as he is joined by Congressional Republican leaders, after a meeting with Congressional leaders on border security, Friday, Jan. 4, 2019, at the White House in Washington, as the government shutdown continues.The former president is also on record in the indictment telling Pence that he was "too honest" when he said he had no power to overturn the 2020 election.
Lauro previewed he plans to argue to the jury that Trump "was arguing for the truth to come out in that election cycle rather than the truth to be denied," adding that "we'll win."
"Even at the end, when he asked Mike Pence to pause the voting, he asked that it be sent back to the states so that the states, in exercising their truth-seeking function, could either audit or recertify," Lauro added.
Case Western Reserve University Law professor Jonathan Adler said he believes the biggest challenge ahead for prosecutors is parsing "what is aggressive, perhaps unethical political activity, from what is actually illegal."
"The case that Smith has set forth, I would argue, is plausible as a legal case. That doesn't mean it will win. It doesn't mean it deserves to win, but I think it's certainly plausible. And we'll have to see," Adler said.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Adler also noted examples of Smith "being overaggressive in pursuing prosecutions before."
At least two of Smith's prior corruption cases have been upended, including a conviction of Robert McDonnell, a Republican former governor of Virginia, that was later overturned by the Supreme Court in an 8-0 decision in June 2016. Trump himself also pardoned the conviction of former Rep. Rick Renzi, an Arizona Republican, on his final day in office.
Comments
Post a Comment