Over the past few months, many questions have been asked regarding the “mysterious Maltese Professor”, Joseph Mifsud and his involvement in the “Trump – Russia” conspiracy. Disobedient Media’s Elizabeth Vos first reported on both professor Mifsud and Russiagate’s many connections to British Intelligence, as well as the findings of Chris Blackburn, who recounted evidence of Mifsud’s close relationship with Italian Senator Gianni Pittella.
In July of 2016, during the heat of the 2016 Presidential election, Pittella attended the Democratic National Convention where he was interviewed by TIME Magazine. In the interview, Pittella formally endorsed then candidate Hillary Clinton, stating: “I have taken the unprecedented step of endorsing and campaigning for Hillary Clinton because the risk of Donald Trump is too high,” Pittella told TIME. “I believe it is in the interest of the European Union and Italy to have Hillary Clinton in office. A Trump victory could be a disaster for the relationship between the U.S.A. and Italy.”
Pittella continued, stating: “This campaign is special…This campaign is not between Democrat or Republican. It’s between democracy and no democracy in the U.S. It’s between having a relationship between the U.S. and the E.U. and the U.S. and other countries, or not. And Italian citizens, together with the world, have the duty not only to intervene, but to act, to support Hillary’s campaign.”
Pittella also spoke at the DNC in Philadelphia, decrying the “virus of populism”, stating that the U.S. “[has] the same virus in your society. And this virus is represented by Donald Trump.”
However, according to internal documents from George Soros Open Society Foundation leaked in 2016, Pittella is considered to be a close ally of Soros. The 127-page document by the Open Society European Policy Institute, titled “Reliable allies in the European Parliament (2014 – 2019)”, lists the names of 226 EU MEPs that are likely to support the Open Society Foundation and its many initiatives. Included among the names of 226 MEPs is that of Gianni Pittella.
According to the document, Pittella is one of six members of the EU’s Conference of Presidents, the highest political decision-making body of the European Parliament, whom are deemed to be among the Open Society Foundation’s reliable allies in the EU.
Using his influence as a highly regarded member of European Parliament, Pittella inserted himself into American politics during the 2016 Presidential race.
Lee Smith of Real Clear Politics, later reported on Chris Blackburn’s exceptional research, including Mifsud’s relationship with Pittella.
Disobedient Media will continue to follow this story as it develops.
Talk on the African American Community and the positive changes that are being made by the Trump Administration led by Ben Carson
Just as it was reported that the summit between the United States and North Korea was back on and that Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea was on his way to New York to meet with officials in preparation for the June 12 summit, the CIA leaked an intelligence assessment concluding that “North Korea does not intend to give up its nuclear weapons any time soon.” The timing of this leak is striking, as it seems to be an effort to undermine negotiations between the two nations and comes just days after ranking members of the Democratic Party and Republican hardliners attacked President Donald Trump over his efforts to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
The identity of the reporter who helped break the story also raises serious questions about whether or not a faction within the CIA deliberately attempted to undermine diplomatic efforts to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula. According to NBC News, the report was leaked to none other than NBC national security reporter Ken Dilanian, known as “The CIA’s Mop-Up Man.”
In 2014, The Intercept reported on Ken Dilanian’s correspondence and relationship with the CIA while Dilanian was a reporter for the Los Angeles Times.
According to The Intercept, “Email exchanges between CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, show that Dilanian enjoyed a close collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times.”
According to the Huffington Post, while writing for the Los Angeles Times, Dilanian also reported a CIA claim as fact by stating that “there was no collateral murder in a 2012 drone strike on Al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi.” Dilanian’s article was directly disputed in an Amnesty International report.
In the aftermath of the revelations about Dilanian’s ties to the CIA, he was disavowed by the Los Angeles Times. The disclosure of Dilanian’s collaboration with the CIA also led his former employer, David Lauter of the Tribune Washington to believe Dilanian could have violated Tribune news policy. Lauter acknowledged that Tribune policy dictates that reporters “not share copies of stories outside the newsroom.” Lauter further stated that he was “disappointed that the emails indicate that Ken may have violated that rule.”
Dilanian has not shied away from pushing articles written by former CIA officials who continue to perpetuate the “Trump-Russia” collusion narrative without any regard to facts, such as Steven Hall’s Washington Post article titled: “I was in the CIA. We wouldn’t trust a country whose leader did what Trump did.”
Perspective | I was in the CIA. We wouldn’t trust a country whose leader did what Trump did. https://t.co/4XG8TmhwKq
Wikileaks has also pointed out Dilanian’s agency connection and his pushing of the “Trump-Russia” collusion narrative, tweeting: “CIA’s ‘mop up man’ Ken Dilanian is the NBC ‘reporter’ used to channel claim about president Putin + US election.”
CIA’s “mop up man” Ken Dilanian is the NBC ‘reporter’ used to channel claim about president Putin + US election https://t.co/GOci4EWwdv
In the aftermath of recent revelations concerning the CIA’s collaboration with foreign intelligence agencies to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 US Presidential Election the fresh leaks continue to show a pattern of rebellion that has long run rampant in the US intelligence community. While the CIA’s apparent violations of ethical considerations concerning surveillance of candidates running for public office was serious enough, their interference drags the reputation of the agency to a new (and in the case of Korean peace negotiations, more dangerous) low amid their conflictwith the sitting President of the United States.
However, despite these attacks, preparations between the two countries have continued for the upcoming June 12 summit. President Trump announced earlier today via Twitter that: “We have put a great team together for our talks with North Korea. Meetings are currently taking place concerning Summit, and more. Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea, heading now to New York. Solid response to my letter, thank you!”
We have put a great team together for our talks with North Korea. Meetings are currently taking place concerning Summit, and more. Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea, heading now to New York. Solid response to my letter, thank you!
Coverage of Trump Rally in Nashville and commentary on Roseanne Barr Tweet. Memorial Day Weekend!
A US District Court judge has ruled that President Trump may not block even rude or obnoxious criticism from his Twitter account, because it is a public forum that is protected by the First Amendment. The Justice Department says it might appeal, but I argue that the DOJ, White House and Trump Administration should instead embrace the decision, expand on it, and apply these legal principles and free speech guidelines to other arenas.
After all, with the multitude of race, sexual orientation and other civil rights now protected by force of law, shouldn’t arguably the most vital and fundamental civil right also be protected? The right of free speech and free assembly, especially regarding one’s beliefs, interests and political viewpoints, and one’s ability to participate in discourse over important political and public policy matters?!?
Thank you for posting my provocative article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.
All public forums should be open and uncensored
Trump should embrace (and expand) court ruling that his Twitter account is free speech forum
President Trump may not block even rude or obnoxious criticism from his Twitter account, because it is a public forum that is protected by the First Amendment, US District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald has ruled. The President’s use of his Twitter account to comment on important policy, personnel and personal announcements made it a public forum, akin to a park or town square, she concluded.
Blocking unwanted tweets is thus viewpoint discrimination, which public officials are not permitted to engage in. Indeed, his Twitter account is not just a public forum. It is also “government space,” and thus may not be closed off, Judge Buchwald continued – rejecting a Justice Department argument that, since Twitter is a public company, it is beyond the reach of First Amendment public forum rules.
Free speech proponents hailed the ruling as a groundbreaking decision, saying it expands constitutional protections deep within the realms of social media. The executive director of Georgetown Law School’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection called it “a critical victory in preserving free speech in the digital age.” Blocking people from responding critically to presidential tweets is unconstitutional, because it prevents them from participating personally and directly in that forum, others said.
The Justice Department said it disagreed with the decision and was considering its next steps. Here’s another option: Embrace and expand on the decision. Assess how these District Court principles and free speech guidelines can be applied in other vital free speech arenas. Take it as far as you can.
Some will then predictably want to construe the decision narrowly, saying it applies only to government officials, perhaps especially conservatives who support this president. Conservatives, the White House and the Trump Administration should not feel bound by such partisan, self-serving assertions.
As Supreme Court and numerous lower court decisions have interpreted the Civil Rights Act and other laws, no person may employ race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, disability status or other categories, to discriminate in admissions, hiring or anything else under any program or activity receiving any form of federal financial assistance, including loans or scholarships. Those that do discriminate will lose their Internal Revenue Service non-profit status and their government funding.
Should that list of categories not include one of the most vital and fundamental civil rights of all – the one addressed and protected by the very first amendment to the United States Constitution? The right of free speech and free assembly, especially regarding one’s beliefs, interests and political viewpoints, and one’s ability to participate in discourse and debate over important political and public policy matters?
Our colleges and universities were once society’s crucible for developing and thrashing out ideas. Sadly, as anyone with a milligram of brain matter realizes, they have become bastions of one-sided ideological propaganda and intolerance. Every conceivable element of “diversity” is permitted and encouraged – nay, demanded – except for our most fundamental civil right of personal views, free speech and robust debate.
That right now applies only to liberal-progressive-leftist views and ideologies. Anything that challenges or questions those teachings is vilified, denounced and silenced, often violently – as being hurtful, hateful, objectionable or intolerable to liberals. Faculty members are hired, protected, promoted or fired based on their social, scientific or political beliefs. Viewpoint discrimination, bullying and mobbing are rampant.
It’s time for pushback. Judicial and Executive Branch decisions and guidelines hold that even private universities that receive federal money for faculty research, student loans and scholarships, or campus facilities, are subject to Civil Rights Act rules. Presidents, administrators and faculty members of public universities are arguably public officials. Campuses and classrooms are clearly public forums.
If they tolerate or encourage viewpoint bullying, mobbing or violence, they are violating the civil rights of students, professors and speakers whose views have been deemed inappropriate, discomforting, hurtful or intolerable to the fragile sensitivities of climate alarmist, pro-abortion, atheist and other liberal factions.
Judge Buchwald’s ruling and the reactions of free speech advocates provide useful guidelines to buttress this approach. The Trump Administration, state attorneys general and free-speech/individual rights advocates should apply them to help restore intellectual rigor and open discourse to our campuses.
The ruling and reactions could also help expand constitutional protections even more deeply in the realms of digital age social media. As they suggest, today’s most popular social media sites have become our most vibrant and essential public forums: today’s parks, town squares and town halls. People, especially millennials, rely on them for news, information and opinions, often as substitutes for print, radio and television (and classrooms). But they now seem far better at censorship than at education or discussion.
Google algorithms increasingly and systematically send climate realism articles to intellectual Siberia. Unless you enter very specific search terms (author’s name, article title and unique wording), those sly algorithms make it difficult or impossible to find articles expressing non-alarmist viewpoints.
Google thus allies with the manmade climate cataclysm establishment – which has received billions of taxpayer dollars from multiple government agencies, but has blocked Climate Armageddon skeptics from getting articles published in scientific journals that often publish papers that involve hidden data, computer codes and other work. Even worse, it facilitates repeated threats that skeptics should be jailed (Bill Nye the Science Guy and RFK Jr.), prosecuted under RICO racketeering laws (Senators Warren and Whitehouse), or even executed (University of Graz, Austria Professor Richard Parncutt).
Google is a private entity, there are other search engines, and those seeking complete, honest research results should see if those alternatives are any better. But there is something repugnant about mankind’s vast storehouses of information being controlled by hyper-partisan techies, in league with equally partisan university, deep state, deep media, hard green and other über-liberal, intolerant elements of our society.
Meanwhile, Google YouTube continues to use its power and position to block posting of and access to equally important information, including over 40 well-crafted, informative, carefully researched Prager University videos – because they contain what YouTube reviewers (censors) decreed is “objectionable content” on current events, history, constitutional principles, environmental topics and public policies.
Scholar-educator Dennis Prager sued YouTube for closing down yet another vital public forum to views that question, contest or simply fail to pay homage to liberal ideologies and agendas.
District Court Judge Lucy Koh concluded that YouTube did indeed apply vague standards and the arbitrary judgments of a few employees, and did indeed discriminate against Prager U by denying it access to this popular social media platform and digital public forum. However, she ruled that Google YouTube is a private company, and thus is under no obligation to be fair, to apply its services equally, or to refrain from imposing penalties on viewpoints with which its partisan officers and employees disagree.
In other words, YouTube may operate as a public forum but it is a private business and thus may discriminate as it wishes – since it does not bake cakes or provide food or overnight accommodations … or deal with any civil rights that Judge Koh would include among protected constitutional rights.
These actions are the hallmarks of communist, fascist and other totalitarian regimes that seek to control all thought, speech, economic activity and other aspects of our lives. They drive policies that further limit our freedoms, kill countless jobs, and cost us billions or trillions of dollars in lost productivity.
The Left is clearly afraid of conservative ideas and principles. It refuses to participate in discussions or debates that it might lose, and instead resorts to mobbing, bullying and violence to silence our voices.
Up to now, lower courts have not always been supportive of the analysis and prescriptions presented in this article. But appellate courts and the Supreme Court have yet to weigh in on the Trump Twitter, Prager YouTube, Google search bias and similar cases. So we are still in uncharted territory.
Conservatives, climate chaos skeptics and true free speech advocates should build their own social media forums – while helping to create the legal precedents that will protect our hard-won rights and freedoms, and exposing, ridiculing, embarrassing and challenging the dominance of the Intolerant Left.
Paul Driessen, JD is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental science and policy.
Be weary of the false patriot…. they are full of hubris and fail to be self aware enough to see their own complete hypocrisy. It’s very easy to see who the patriots are in America right now. The False patriots should check their alliances before it gets too late.
It’s all about laws.
People should get familiar with them.
Time to SERIOUSLY start draining the swamp and see what the hell we are sending them our money for.
To sit around and align themselves with foreign agents to sell out Americans all day?
I don’t think so.
Career bureaucrats should take account. We’re coming after you. Prove your value… you’re on our dime. Don’t be a traitor.
Seems more likely that mueller is working for trump. It’s what a little bird hasn’t told me.
Great Mark Levin here. Educational. Factual. We aren’t the standard republic… this is America. We’re exceptional.
The CLINTON CARTEL
“This Ain’t a Hill Worthy of Dying On”
-James Comey translation (Oh LORDY, gee whiz, I’m glad I bailed!)
Everyone, grab your “VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY” hat and let’s take a journey to the center of it all…. Putin is giving SPIES AND BOTS a graduation speech to all his wizards. They were able to influence an entire election but definitely didn’t sway the vote of 9 board members to sell off U.S. unharvested Nuke minerals.
The Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 as the William J. Clinton Foundation), and from 2013 to 2015, briefly renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation) is a nonprofit corporation under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code. It was established by former President of the United States Bill Clinton with the stated mission to “strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.” Its offices are located in New York City and Little Rock, Arkansas.
Through 2016 the foundation had raised an estimated $2 billion from U.S. corporations, foreign governments and corporations, political donors, and various other groups and individuals. The acceptance of funds from wealthy donors has been a source of controversy. The foundation “has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support”.
Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead uses most of its money to carry out its own humanitarian programs.
According to the Foundation’s website, neither Bill Clinton nor his daughter, Chelsea Clinton (both are members of the governing board), draws any salary or receives any income from the Foundation. When Hillary Clinton was a board member she, too, received no income from the Foundation.
Something strange is going on with the Clinton Foundation.
Donors to any cause have expectations.
Money does not change hands without reason.
The people, organizations and countries who make up the network of donors are not fools, and they don’t settle for failure.
Relative to the budget, the Clinton Foundation’s philanthropic successes are dismal at best.
The Clinton’s have done nothing outside of politics.
Their ability to generate wealth personally, as well as for their associates, is rooted solely in political office.
Most their massive fortune was accumulated while Hillary held positions in the US Government.
A large portion of the remainder can be linked to programs initiated during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
Hillary Clinton was a US Senator from 2001 – 2009, she served on 5 separate committees, wielding legislative power in a wide range of policies, foreign and domestic.
Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State from 2009 – 2013. The duties and responsibilities of the Secretary of State include: supervision and organization of the entire community of United States Department of State and the United States Foreign Service including the oversight of weapons transfers to foreign nations, supervision of US immigration policy, and communication of foreign policy issues to Congress and US citizens.
In other words, Hillary Clinton supervised the agency that is responsible for regulating U.S. arms exports.
From 2009 – 2013 the pattern of arms exports shifted dramatically.
State Department exports approvals substantially increased to governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation.
The U.S. government approved $40 billion in worldwide private arms sales in 2009, including more than $7 billion to Mideast and North African nations that are struggling with political upheaval, the State Department reported.
Under Clinton’s leadership (2009 – 2013), the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation.
During Clinton’s tenure at State, the foundation operated in at least 29 countries, including places that contained rampant corruption such as Nigeria, Uganda, Ukraine, Haiti, Mozambique, China and South Africa.
In Diplomatic Cables published by Wikileaks dated December 2009, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan had no interest in cracking down on terror financing occurring within their respective borders.
More recently, Wikileaks published an email correspondence between John Podesta and Hillary Clinton dated August 29, 2014 in which the continuation of terror financing is acknowledged again.
The US Defense Contractors who benefitted from these deals, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and General Electric also paid millions of dollars in lobbying fees to the Podesta Group.
Within the law?
The Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, and a significant number of their close friends and direct associates are knowingly involved in numerous, separate schemes, the purposes of which are to leverage the power of political office and/or positions of bureaucratic authority to accumulate personal political and financial capital.
Investments yield return.
It can be said with 100% certainty that a considerable portion of the proceeds moving into the Clinton Foundation (and the Podesta Group), from persons and organizations, foreign and domestic, were invested (donated) with the expectation of return in some form, the value of which ultimately being greater than the initial deposit. Which again, is not necessarily illegal. Under certain conditions, it is.
Contrary to Hollywood’s portrayals of the wealthy, the overwhelming majority of wealthy individuals do not go around writing million dollar checks for absolutely no reason. Most likely:
They believed it was for a good cause.
They hoped to gain favor and collect return.
Sure, some people, maybe even the majority, donated with the hope of contributing to something good. Among the small donors, this is likely the case, especially early on. The Clinton Foundation was founded in 1997. Since then, what positive difference has it made? What evidence can be produced? Relative to the size and budget, it has done nearly nothing. They certainly haven’t solved any problems. It is safe to say that the contributors writing million dollar checks are no fools. They are industry elites. The corporations and key executives responsible for the largest companies in the world. Slick Willy aint that slick.
What are they selling?
The Clinton family, not having done any sort of work outside of politics, do not produce any products, physical or intellectual, nor do they perform any services that do not derive value from past political positions or relationships developed as the result of those positions.
Graduates of Yale, and lawyers by trade, Bill and Hillary Clinton have both spent their entire careers in politics. After graduating in 1973, Bill was a law professor at the University of Arkansas, ran for the House of Representatives, and was elected Arkansas Attorney General before being elected Governor of Arkansas.
Hillary, after graduation, taught law at the University of Arkansas, served as a defense counsel and eventually joined the Rose Law Firm, a bastion of Arkansan political and economic influence, before becoming the First Lady of Arkansas.
Somehow the Clinton family has amassed a combined fortune estimated to be over $200,000,000, not including the tens, or even hundreds of millions spent on their lavish lifestyle. This also does not include the Clinton Foundation (which apparently paid for Chelsea Clinton’s multi-million-dollar wedding).
Earning this money primarily from speaking fees averaging just over $210,000 each, the Clintons have been jetted around the world at the expense of private banks, big business and foreign nations. From 2001 to 2014, they spent $95,000,000 on taxes. By any estimation, they made more money flapping their jaws than anyone else in history.
Realistically, what did the Clintons have worth paying for? What could they possibly offer to people in exchange for hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars? The only answer to that question is political influence.
Conflict(s) of Interest
A substantial portion (likely the vast majority) of this wealth was collected while Hillary held public office.
As Senator of New York, she served on the Committee on Budget (2000 – 2002), Committee on Armed Services (2003 – 2009), Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001 – 2009), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001 – 2009), and the Special Committee on Aging. She was also a member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (2001 – 2009).
As Secretary of State from 2009-2013, using the authority of her office, Hillary Clinton brokered the sale military equipment and technology, including fighter jets, attack helicopters, missiles, missile defense systems, many of which were transferred to nations deemed complicit in support of terrorist activities against the United States and allies. The annual sum of these sales shattered records.
During this time these same foreign nations donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
Coincidentally, again during this same time frame (actually, dating back to the late 1990s and early 2000s), the defense contractors who ultimately received contracts for these deals paid tens millions of dollars to the lobbying group owned and operated by John and Tony Podesta. (among other lobbying firms)
John Podesta served as White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton from 1998-2001. During the Obama Administration, John Podesta served as co-chair to the transition team and Senior Advisor to the President.
The Podestas also received millions of dollars from several corporations and organizations owned in part by many of the same foreign nations who were approved by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to purchase American military weapons and technology.
The Clinton Foundation since its inception, has received over $2,000,000,000 in contributions from a vast network of people and organizations all over the world. The organizations mission is a war on various world problems ranging from poverty to gender equality. The positive results of the Clinton Foundation’s programs remain unclear.
|Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation||$25,000,001 – No maximum|
|Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada)||$25,000,001 – No maximum|
|Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation||$25,000,001 – No maximum|
|Fred Eychaner||$25,000,001 – No maximum|
|Nationale Postcode Loterij||$25,000,001 – No maximum|
|The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation||$25,000,001 – No maximum|
|UNITAID||$25,000,001 – No maximum|
|AUSAID||$10,000,001 – $25,000,000|
|Cheryl and Haim Saban & The Saban Family Foundation||$10,000,001 – $25,000,000|
|COPRESIDA||$10,000,001 – $25,000,000|
|Government of Norway||$10,000,001 – $25,000,000|
|Kingdom of Saudi Arabia||$10,000,001 – $25,000,000|
|Stephen L. Bing||$10,000,001 – $25,000,000|
|The ELMA Foundation||$10,000,001 – $25,000,000|
|The Hunter Foundation||$10,000,001 – $25,000,000|
|The Victor Pinchuk Foundation||$10,000,001 – $25,000,000|
|Theodore W. Waitt||$10,000,001 – $25,000,000|
|Tom Golisano||$10,000,001 – $25,000,000|
|C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Inc.||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|Commonwealth of Australia, DIICC||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|Denis J. O’Brien||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|Elton John AIDS Foundation||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|Government of the Netherlands||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|Irish Aid||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|J.B. and M.K. Pritzker Family Foundation||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|John D. Mackay||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|Michael Schumacher||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|S. Daniel Abraham||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|State of Kuwait||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|Susie Tompkins Buell Fund of the Marin Community Foundation||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|The Coca-Cola Company||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|The Rockefeller Foundation||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|The Swedish Postcode Lottery||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|The Wasserman Foundation||$5,000,001 – $10,000,000|
|100 Women in Hedgefunds||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Absolute Return for Kids (ARK)||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Amar Singh||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|American Federation of Teachers||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Angelopoulos Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Anheuser-Busch Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Ariadne Getty||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Arnold H. Simon||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Barclays Capital||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Bernard L. Schwartz||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Booz Allen Hamilton||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Bren Simon||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Carlos Slim Helú & Fundación Carlos Slim||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Christy and John Mack Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Cisco||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Citi Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Dave Katragadda||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Donald L. Saunders||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Dubai Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Duke Energy Corporation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Entergy||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|ExxonMobil||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Frank White||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Friends of Saudi Arabia||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Fundacion Telmex||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|GEMS Education||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Gerardo Werthein||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Gianna Angelopoulos||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Gilbert R. Chagoury||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|GIZ – Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Harold Snyder||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Hewlett-Packard Company||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Hult International Business School||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Humana Inc.||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|ICAP Services North America||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Inter-American Development Bank||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Issam M. Fares & The Wedge Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|James R. Murdoch||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Jay Alix||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Joachim Schoss||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Jonathan M. Orszag||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Joseph T. Ford||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Kessler Family Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Lakshmi N. Mittal||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Laureate International Universities||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Lukas Lundin||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|MAC AIDS Fund||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Mala Gaonkar Haarman||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Mary Bing and Doug Ellis||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Michael and Jena King||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Michael Smurfit||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Microsoft||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Nasser Al-Rashid||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Newsmax Media Inc.||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Nima Taghavi||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Norad (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation)||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|NRG Energy, Inc.||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|OAS S.A.||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|OCP Corporation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Open Society Institute||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Paul D. Reynolds||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Peter G. Peterson Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Pfizer Inc||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|PGA Tour, Inc.||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Presidential Inaugural Committee||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Princess Diana Memorial Fund||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Procter & Gamble||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Richard and Jackie Caring||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Richard Blum and Blum Family Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Rilin Enterprises||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Robert Disbrow||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Robert L. Johnson||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Robertson Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Roy E. Cockrum||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Salida Capital Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Sanela D. Jenkins||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Smith and Elizabeth Bagley||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Sol Goldman Charitable Trust||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Standard Chartered Bank||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Starkey Hearing Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Starkey Hearing Technologies, Inc.||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|State of Qatar||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Stephen J. Cloobeck||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Sterling Stamos Capital Management, LP||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Steven Spielberg||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Stewart Rahr||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Suzlon Energy Ltd.||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Swedish Postcode Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Swiss Reinsurance Company||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|T.G. Holdings||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Tenet Healthcare Corporation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Annenberg Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Boeing Company||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Clinton Family Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Dow Chemical Company||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The ELMA Philanthropies Services (U.S.) Inc.||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The ERANDA Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Ford Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Government of Brunei Darussalam||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Howard Gilman Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The James R. Greenbaum, Jr. Family Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Marc Haas Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The New York Community Trust||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Roy and Christine Sturgis Charitable & Educational Trust||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Sherwood Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Sidney E. Frank Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Streisand Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Sultanate of Oman||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Walmart Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Walton Family Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Wyss Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|The Zayed Family||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Thomson Reuters||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Torres-Picón Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Toyota Motor North America, Inc.||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Tracfone Wireless, Inc.||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|UK Department for International Development (DFID)||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|United Arab Emirates||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Verein Aids Life||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Victor P. Dahdaleh & The Victor Phillip Dahdaleh Charitable Foundation||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Vin Gupta||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Walid Juffali||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Wallace W. Fowler||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Walter H. Shorenstein||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|Worldwide Support for Development||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
|YPY Holding Limited||$1,000,001 – $5,000,000|
For Full List of Donors below $1 million visit our partner – iDrainTheSwamp
- George Nader plead guilty to a child pornography charge in the United States in 1991. In 2003 he was convicted of 10 cases of sexually abusing minors in Prague.
- According to the Associated Press investigative report, George Nader was one of two individuals close to the President selling access to Trump and lobbying Congress to push pro-Saudi/UAE and anti-Qatar policies in the Middle East.
Broidy and his business partner, Lebanese-American George Nader, pitched themselves to the crown princes as a backchannel to the White House, passing the princes’ praise — and messaging — straight to the president’s ears.
…In return for pushing anti-Qatar policies at the highest levels of America’s government, Broidy and Nader expected huge consulting contracts from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, according to an Associated Press investigation based on interviews with more than two dozen people and hundreds of pages of leaked emails between the two men. The emails reviewed by the AP included work summaries and contracting documents and proposals.
…Neither Broidy nor Nader registered with the U.S. government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a law intended to make lobbyists working for foreign governments disclose their ties and certain political activities. The law requires people to register even if they are not paid but merely directed by foreign interests with political tasks in mind.
Violating the federal law carries a maximum $10,000 fine or up to five years in prison.
3. George Nader is a cooperating witness to Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation and has already testified before a grand jury. Nader is well known as an advisor to the United Arab Emirates, but the New York Times has discovered that he has ties to Russia too. George Nader used his ties to the CEO of a Russian sovereign wealth fund to set up the Seychelles meeting between Trump advisor Erik Prince and Kirill A. Dmitriev to, allegedly, establish a Trump-Putin back channel. Prince had told Congressional investigators and journalists that his meeting with the CEO of the Russia Direct Investment Fund, Dimitriev, was unplanned and that he just happened to run into him. George Nader contests that testimony, Nader says that Prince planned the meeting well in advance. Another interesting tidbit is that the wife of the RDIF CEO that Erik Prince was introduced to by George Nader is close friends with Putin’s younger daughter.
Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, is known to have met with Prince shortly before President Trump’s inauguration, and Prince admitted to the meeting while testifying before the House Intelligence Committee late last year.
Six sources cited by the Financial Times say Dmitriev’s wife, Natalia Popova, is close friends with Putin’s younger daughter, Yekaterina Tikhonova, and also serves as the deputy director of her Innopraktika foundation.
SEE ALSO: The 5 Eyes Group
Former President of Maryland-Based Transportation Company Indicted on 11 Counts Related to Foreign Bribery, Fraud and Money Laundering Scheme
Executive Allegedly Paid Bribes to a Russian Official So His Company Could Win Highly Sensitive Nuclear Fuel Transportation Contracts
An indictment against a former co-president of a Maryland-based transportation company that provides services for the transportation of nuclear materials to customers in the United States and abroad, was unsealed today for his alleged role in a scheme that involved the bribery of an official at a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation.
Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Acting U.S. Attorney Stephen M. Schenning of the District of Maryland, Principal Deputy Inspector General April G. Stephenson of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General (DOE-OIG) and Assistant Director in Charge Andew W. Vale of the FBI’s Washington, D.C. Field Office made the announcement.
Mark Lambert, 54, of Mount Airy, Maryland, was charged in an 11-count indictment with one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to commit wire fraud, seven counts of violating the FCPA, two counts of wire fraud and one count of international promotion money laundering. The charges stem from an alleged scheme to bribe Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official at JSC Techsnabexport (TENtEX), a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation and the sole supplier and exporter of Russian Federation uranium and uranium enrichment services to nuclear power companies worldwide, in order to secure contracts with TENEX.
The case against Lambert is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the District of Maryland.
According to the indictment, beginning at least as early as 2009 and continuing until October 2014, Lambert conspired with others at “Transportation Corporation A” to make corrupt and fraudulent bribery and kickback payments to offshore bank accounts associated with shell companies, at the direction of, and for the benefit of, a Russian official, Vadime Mikerin, in order to secure improper business advantages and obtain and retain business with TENEX. In order to effectuate and conceal the corrupt and fraudulent bribe payments, Lambert and others allegedly caused fake invoices to be prepared, purportedly from TENEX to Transportation Corporation A, that described services that were never provided, and then Lambert and others caused Transportation Corporation A to wire the corrupt payments for those purported services to shell companies in Latvia, Cyprus and Switzerland. Lambert and others also allegedly used code words like “lucky figures,” “LF,” “lucky numbers,” and “cake” to describe the payments in emails to the Russian official at his personal email account. The indictment also alleges that Lambert and others caused Transportation Corporation A to overbill TENEX by building the cost of the corrupt payments into their invoices, and TENEX thus overpaid for Transportation Corporation A’s services.
In June 2015, Lambert’s former co-president, Daren Condrey, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and commit wire fraud, and Vadim Mikerin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering involving violations of the FCPA. Mikerin is currently serving a sentence of 48 months in prison and Condrey is awaiting sentencing. The indictment includes allegations against Lambert based on his role in effectuating the criminal scheme with Condrey, Mikerin, and others.
**The charges in the indictment are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.**
The case is being investigated by DOE-OIG and the FBI. Assistant Chiefs Ephraim Wernick and Christopher J. Cestaro and Trial Attorney Derek J. Ettinger of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, as well as Assistant U.S. Attorneys David I. Salem and Michael T. Packard of the District of Maryland, are prosecuting the case.
The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs has provided significant assistance in this matter. The Department also thanks its law enforcement colleagues in Switzerland, Latvia and Cyprus for providing valuable assistance with the investigation and prosecution of the case.
The Criminal Division’s Fraud Section is responsible for investigating and prosecuting all FCPA matters. Additional information about the Justice Department’s FCPA enforcement efforts can be found at www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa.
Component(s): Criminal Division USAO – Maryland
Press Release Number: 18-34
The founder and owner of Frederick’s Dragon Distillery was indicted Friday on charges related to his alleged role in bribing a Russian atomic energy official to win government contracts for the company he formerly co-owned.
Mark Lambert, 54, of Mount Airy, faces 11 charges including violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and wire fraud, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement released Friday.
#We categorically reject the charges and are eager to dispute and defeat them in court,” William M. Sullivan Jr., attorney for Lambert, said in an email Friday.
Lambert, who owns Dragon Distillery in Frederick, is the former co-president, along with Daren Condrey, of a Maryland-based nuclear fuel transportation company. The company, referred to as Transportation Company A in the indictment, provided logistical support for transporting nuclear materials in the United States and to foreign clients.
In the indictment unsealed Friday, prosecutors allege that Lambert and others concealed corrupt and fraudulent payments with fake invoices, offshore bank accounts and shell companies in Latvia, Cyprus and Switzerland, the release states.
Authorities believe that from at least 2009 to October 2014 Lambert and other company executives conspired to bribe Vadim Mikerin, an official at the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation subsidiary JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX), in order to secure contracts for transporting nuclear fuel, according to the Justice Department release.
TENEX, which supplies uranium and uranium enrichment services to international companies, wholly owned a U.S.-based company called TENAM Corporation, according to the indictment.
The case is being investigated by the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Energy and FBI.
Around 2009, Lambert and Condrey began working with a third, unnamed executive at Transportation Company A to bribe Mikerin, according to the indictment. In exchange, Mikerin would help steer contracts to the transportation company.
Investigators believe Lambert and the others discussed the scheme in emails, using code words such as “lucky figures,” “lucky numbers” and “cake” to talk about bribes and kickbacks.
Prosecutors also believe that on Dec. 21, 2011, Mikerin sent Condrey an invoice purportedly from TENEX requesting payment of $125,930.53 for services that were never provided to Transportation Company A, according to the indictment. On Dec. 22, 2011, Lambert allegedly authorized a wire transfer from the company’s Maryland bank account to a shell company bank account in Latvia for the same amount.
Investigators identified eight similar wire transfers from Transportation Company A to the shell companies in Latvia and Switzerland made between 2011 and 2014 for amounts ranging from $48,089 to more than $142,000, according to the indictment.
**This is just speculation at this point as to any relation to Uranium One so we will have to track closely to see what unfolds.
TENAM Website: Tenam-USA
See also: The 5 Eyes Group
Charles Ortel should be a household name.
He’s a true patriot in the digital era.
His research and website can be found here: Charles Ortel
Catch his latest video below!