Category Archives: FBI

Seth Rich FOIA status update, Ty Clevenger v USDOJ Dept. of Justice June 7, 2019 defendants request for extension of time granted, Clevenger request for records concerning murder of DNC employee Seth Rich

Seth Rich FOIA status update, Ty Clevenger v USDOJ Dept. of Justice June 7, 2019 defendants request for extension of time granted, Clevenger request for records concerning murder of DNC employee Seth Rich

“The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not a victim of robbery.”…Retired Admiral James A. Lyons March 1, 2018

“Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray May 9, 2019

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

On September 1, 2017, Attorney Ty Clevenger made a FOIA request to the U.S. Department of Justice:

“I request the opportunity to view all records and correspondence pertaining to
Seth Conrad Rich (DOB: January 3, 1989), who was murdered in the District of
Columbia on or about July 10, 2016. This request includes, but is not limited to, any records or correspondence resulting from any investigation of his murder.”

http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017.09.01-Seth-Rich-FOIA-request.pdf

On March 14, 2018 Attorney Clevenger filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

“This morning I filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that asks a federal judge in Brooklyn to order the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice to release records concerning the murder of former Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich.

Back in October, I wrote about the U.S. Department of Justice ordering the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. to release records about the murder, but since that time not a single record has been produced.  Around the same time, the FBI refused to search for records in its Washington Field Office, even though that is where the records are most likely to be found.  The lawsuit notes that the FBI has a history of trying to hide records from FOIA requestors and Congress.”

http://lawflog.com/?p=1912

From the lawsuit:

“The Plaintiff submitted the FOIA request electronically and/or via facsimile to the following specific components of DOJ: the FBI, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys(“EOUSA”),the Criminal Division,and the Office ofInformation Policy(“OIP”).

7. In a September 13, 2017 letter, the EOUSA indicated that it would not release records without proof of Mr. Rich’s death. The Plaintiff immediately filed an administrative appeal, and OIP reversed EOUSA’s decision on October 2, 2017, directing EOUSA to search for responsive records. As of the date of this Complaint, however, EOUSA has failed to:(1) produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production; or(2) notify the Plaintiff of the scope of any responsive records EOUSA intends to produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings.

8. In a September 19, 2017 letter, the FBI indicated that its search produced no responsive records: Based on the information you provided, we conducted a search of the Central Recordf System. We were unable to identify main file records responsive to the FOIA. If you have additional information pertaining to the subject that you believe was ofinvestigative interest to the Bureau, please provide us the details and we will conduct an additional search.

9. On September 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an electronic appeal of the FBI’s decision with OPI, writing as follows: The September 19, 2017 letter that I received from the FBI indicates that it only searched the “Central Records System” and that it was unable to identify “main file records” responsive to the FOIA. My request was not limited to the Central Records System nor to main file records. Any responsive records likely would be found in emails, hard copy documents, and other files in the FBI’s Washington Field Office. In my experience, the FBI often does not search email accounts in response to FOIA requests, and it appears that it did not search email records in this instance. The FBI should be directed to conduct a thorough search, to include emails and other records in the Washington Field Office. The administrative appeal was denied on November 9, 2017. As of the date of this Complaint, other DOJ components have not responded to the Plaintiffs FOIA request.

10. In response to an unrelated FOIA request submitted by the Plaintiff, the FBI produced documents on January 12, 2018 indicating that Peter Baker, the former general counsel for the FBI, attempted to hide certain records from FOIA requestors. In that request, the Plainiiff sought records concerning laptop computers examined by the FBI as part of its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. According to the records produced on January 12, 2018, the FBI agreed to take custody of the laptops from two lawyers for purposes of the investigation, but it further agreed to deny that it had custody of the devices for purposes of FOIA requests. See Ty Clevenger, January 12, 2018,”Document dump provides more evidence that FBI was playing politics,” http://lawflog.com/?p=l832. Also during Mr. Baker’s tenure, the FBI withheld records sought by another agency until that agency signed a non-disclosure agreement to prevent the records from being released to Congress. See September 25,2017 Letter from Senator Charles Grassley to FBI Director Christopher Wray, https://www.grasslev.senate.gov/news/news-releases/watchdog-agencv-made-sign-nQn- i disclosure-agreements-get-information-fbi.

11. With respect to Mr. Rich’s murder, the Plaintiff is reliably informed that FBI agents assisted the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department in its investigation, specifically assisting the local police as they sought information from Mr. Rich’s electronic devices. Given the FBI’s history of trying to conceal information from FOIA requestors and Congress, the Plaintiff must wonder whether the FBI entered an agreement with the Metropolitan Police to withhold records related to Mr. Rich’s murder.

12. On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a FOIA request with NSA that sought, among other things, the following: All correspondence received from or sent to any member of Congress (or anyone representing a member of Congress or Congressional committee) regarding Seth Rich, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Kim Dotcom, Aaron Rich, Shawn Lucas, Kelsey Mulka, Imran Awan, Abid Awan, Jamal Awan, Hina Alvi, and/or Rao Abbas.

13. In a letter dated February 14, 2018, the NSA indicated that it searched for responsive records but was still reviewing the records to determine whether to release them. As of the date of this Complaint, NSA has failed to:(1) produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production; or(2) notify the Plaintiff of the scope of any responsive records EOUSA intends to produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings.”

http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018.03.14-FOIA-lawsuit.pdf

The last court record in the lawsuit was Friday, June 7, 2019.

“ORDER: Defendants’ counsel writes, with plaintiff’s consent to request an extension of time for service of defendants’ summary judgment motion. ECF No.24 . This is defendants’ second request. The request is granted. The Court adopts the parties’ proposed briefing schedule. Defendants’ counsel shall serve their motion for summary judgment on plaintiff by July 22, 2019. Plaintiff shall serve his response on defendants’ counsel by August 22, 2019. Defendants’ counsel shall serve their reply on plaintiff and file the fully briefed motion for summary judgment by September 12, 2019. A courtesy copy of the fully briefed motion for summary judgment shall be delivered to chambers by that same date. Defendant is reminded that Local Rule 56.2 requires special notice to a pro se litigant regarding a motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 6/7/2019. ”

You can view the lawsuit’s progress through the court and status here:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23965120/Clevenger_v_US_Department_Of_Justice_et_al

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Advertisements

Mueller covering his ass too in phony Russian collusion narrative, Keeping heat off Clintons protected him, Robert Mueller over FBI when Hillary made uranium deal, On his watch

Mueller covering his ass too in phony Russian collusion narrative, Keeping heat off Clintons protected him, Robert Mueller over FBI when Hillary made uranium deal, On his watch

“As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.”…Wikileaks.org October 7, 2016

“An American businessman who worked for years undercover as an FBI confidential witness was blocked by the Obama Justice Department from telling Congress about conversations and transactions he witnessed related to the Russian nuclear industry’s efforts to win favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton and influence Obama administration decisions”…The Hill October 18, 2017

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

Facts regarding the sale of uranium assets to the Russians orchestrated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s office have been cogitating in my head for years.

I knew why Hillary wanted the phony Russian collusion narrative perpetuated.

To rationalize her loss in the 2016 election and to cover their ass.

I kept wondering why Robert Mueller was so zealous in his efforts.

And then it dawned on me.

Minimally, the uranium deal happened on his watch as head of the FBI.

But apparently there is more.

Mueller is highly motivated to cover his ass.

From Zero Hedge.

“Former FBI SSA Exposes McCabe & Mueller’s “Unethical, Target & Destroy Coercion” Tactics, Defends Flynn

“Dear Judge Sullivan:

I am submitting my letter directly since Mike Flynn’s attorney has refused to submit it as well as letters submitted by other individuals. I feel you need to hear from someone who was an FBI Special Agent who not only worked with Mike, but also has personally witnessed and reported unethical & sometimes illegal tactics used to coerce targets of investigations externally and internally.”

“Thomas Fitton of Judicial Watch commented to me that the “Process is the punishment.”  This is the most accurate description I have heard regarding the time Mike has gone through with this process and the year and a half I was ostracized and idled before I resigned.  This process is one which many FBI employees, current, retired and former, feel was brought to the FBI by Mueller and he subsequently brought this to the Special Prosecutor investigation. It also fostered the behavior among FBI “leadership” which we find ourselves shocked at when revealed on a daily basis. Is this the proper way to seek justice? I say no.  I swore to uphold the Constitution while protecting the civil rights of the American people. I believe many individuals involved in Mike’s case have lost their way and could care less about protection of due process, civil and legal rights of who they are targeting. Mike has had extensive punishment throughout this process. This process has punished him harder than anyone else could.”

“I believe I have a unique inside view of the mannerisms surrounding Andrew McCabe, other FBI Executive Management and Former Director Mueller, as well as the unethical and coercive tactics they use, not to seek the truth, but to coerce pleas or admissions to end the pain, as I call it. They destroy lives for their own agendas instead of seeking the truth for the American people. Candor is something that should be encouraged and used by leadership to have necessary and continued improvement.  Under Mueller, it was seen as a threat and viciously opposed by those he pulled up in the chain of command.”

Read more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-15/former-fbi-ssa-exposes-mccabe-muellers-unethtical-target-destroy-coercion-tactics

From The Hill.

“Eight years after its informant uncovered criminal wrongdoing inside Russia’s nuclear industry, the FBI has identified 37 pages of documents that might reveal what agents told the Obama administration, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others about the controversial Uranium One deal.

There’s just one problem: The FBI claims it must keep the memos secret from the public.

Their excuses for the veil of nondisclosure range from protecting national security and law enforcement techniques to guarding the privacy of individual Americans and the ability of agencies to communicate with each other.

Sound familiar?”

“The FBI’s declaration and list of withheld documents — entitled simply “Uranium One Transaction” — were posted recently inside its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) online vault.”

“Campbell gathered extensive evidence for his FBI counterintelligence handlers by early 2010 that Rosatom’s main executive in the United States, Vadim Mikerin, orchestrated a racketeering plot involving kickbacks, bribes and extortion that corrupted the main uranium trucking company in the United States. That is a serious national security compromise by any measure.

The evidence was compiled as Secretary Clinton courted Russia for better relations, as her husband former President Clinton collected a $500,000 speech payday in Moscow, and as the Obama administration approved the sale of a U.S. mining company, Uranium One, to Rosatom.

The sale — made famous years later by author Peter Schweizer and an epic New York Times exposé in 2015 — turned over a large swath of America’s untapped uranium deposits to Russia.”

“Campbell tells me his FBI handlers assured him they had briefed Obama and then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, now the Russia special prosecutor, on Rosatom’s criminal activities as part of the president’s daily briefing and that agents suggested to him that “politics” was the reason the sale was allowed to go through.”

Read more:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/409356-fbis-37-secret-pages-of-memos-about-russia-clintons-and-uranium-one

From Real Clear Politics.

“Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Saturday special counsel Robert Mueller is trying to cover up his involvement with the Uranium One deal that benefited the Clintons while “trying to have a coup against the president.””

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/06/09/gohmert_mueller_covering_involvement_in_clinton-uranium_deal_while_trying_to_have_a_coup_against_trump.html

The Youtube video from the above link:

“Video unavailable
“Representative Louie Gohmer…”
The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.”

More on the Russia uranium deal.

http://www.g-a-i.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf

After arriving at my conclusions above, I found the following.

From WSAU.

“Holy Cow! DEEP STATE Goes after Uranium One Whistleblower

Robert Mueller actually colluded with the Russians

This is amazing and Deep State corruption at its worse. The Uranium One scandal is one of the main reasons why Robert Muller was appointed to investigate Donald Trump. They need to bring President Trump down to protect themselves.

FBI Raids Recognized Whistleblower’s Home for Clinton Foundation
Robert Mueller actually colluded with the Russians and allowed them to take control of about 20% of America’s Uranium. FACT! He was the head of the FBI and signed off on it. So did all the other department heads in the Obama administration. They all colluded with Russia.

Why would any of these people do that? The same people that are telling you, RIGHT NOW, that Russia is a major threat to America, gave Russia OUR Uranium. They are the same people who, RIGHT NOW, say if Trump even talked to Russians he should be locked up.

The logical conclusion is they did it because they were paid by the Russians. The Clinton foundation was a pay to play scheme. We all know it. It is why Hillary had a hidden private server. It is why Hillary deleted 30,000 subpoenaed emails illegally. It is why no one is being held accountable.

Robert Mueller is leading the special counsel because he has skin in the game.”

Read more:

https://wsau.com/blogs/ben-armstrong-blog/20344/holy-cow-deep-state-goes-after-uranium-one-whistleblower/

 

 

 

 

 

 

FBI must retrieve Christine Blasey Ford scrubbed social media data, Testimony: “I have been accused of acting out of partisan political motives. Those who say that do not know me. I’m an independent person and I am no one’s pawn.”

FBI must retrieve Christine Blasey Ford scrubbed social media data, Testimony: “I have been accused of acting out of partisan political motives. Those who say that do not know me. I’m an independent person and I am no one’s pawn.”

“Democrat mantra: The end justifies the means.”…Citizen Wells

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

Fact. Christine Blasey Ford lied before and during her testimony.

She admitted to scrubbing her social media accounts.

I tried unsuccessfully to retrieve remnants from the Wayback Machine and other sources. More often than not that is possible.

Her past appears to have been professionally scrubbed.

Once again I quote “1984.”

“The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had
actually been destroyed. For how could you establish, even
the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside
your own memory?”

Christine Blasey Ford has destroyed evidence, evidence that was needed during her testimony.

If this is a sincere effort to arrive at the truth, the FBI must get these records!

*** UPDATE  10/1/2018 9:00 AM  ***

I was given a heads up earlier.

Christine Blasey Ford during her testimony stated:

“I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.”

  • CA statutes are specific about who may use the title Psychologist.
  • Ms. Ford is not a licensed Psychologist.
  • In 2015 the Standford website listed her as: “RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST, PSYCH/GENERAL PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHOLOGY (ADULT)”
  • It currently describes her as: “AFFILIATE, PSYCHIATRY AND BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES”

I am not sure what this means.

Was she having another memory issue?

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Oleg Deripaska “colluded” with Obama Justice Dept. not Trump, 2009 to 2016, Robert Mueller was running the FBI, Trump’s alleged “back channel” to Putin was in fact an FBI asset

Oleg Deripaska “colluded” with Obama Justice Dept. not Trump, 2009 to 2016, Robert Mueller was running the FBI, Trump’s alleged “back channel” to Putin was in fact an FBI asset

“Why was Tony West, who helped Obama keep his records hidden at taxpayer expense, promoted to Acting Associate Attorney General, the third highest official at the Justice Department?”…Citizen Wells

“People need to understand that the Democrat Party today is not the Democrat Party of John F. Kennedy. The Democrat Party with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is more Marxist than anything else.  They think the Constitution should be a ‘progressive’ document.  In other words, the Constitution is outdated and should be redone. “…Kevin Shipp

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From Zero Hedge.

“Russian Oligarch And Putin Pal Admits To Collusion, Secret Meetings

Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a close associate of Vladimir Putin, has gone on record with The Hill‘s John Solomon – admitting to colluding with Americans leading up to the 2016 US election, except it might not be what you’re thinking.

Deripaska, rumored to be Donald Trump’s “back channel” to Putin via the Russian’s former association with Paul Manafort, says he “colluded” with the US Government between 2009 and 2016.

In 2009, when Robert Mueller was running the FBI, the agency asked Deripaska to spend $25 million of his own money to bankroll an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent – Robert Levinson, who was kidnapped in 2007 while working on a 2007 CIA contract in Iran. This in and of itself is more than a bit strange.

Deripaska agreed, however the Obama State Department, headed by Hillary Clinton, scuttled a last-minute deal with Iran before Levinson could be released. He hasn’t been heard from since.

FBI agents courted Deripaska in 2009 in a series of secret hotel meetings in Paris; Vienna; Budapest, Hungary, and Washington. Agents persuaded the aluminum industry magnate to underwrite the mission. The Russian billionaire insisted the operation neither involve nor harm his homeland. -The Hill

In other words – Trump’s alleged “back channel” to Putin was in fact an FBI asset who spent $25 million helping Obama’s “scandal free” administration find a kidnapped agent. Deripaska’s admitted ”

“As the New York Times frames it, distancing Deripaska from the FBI (no mention of the $25 million rescue effort, for example), the Russian aluminum magnate was just one of several Putin-linked Oligarchs the FBI tried to flip.”

Read more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-01/russian-oligarch-and-putin-pal-admits-collusion-secret-meetings

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Judge Amit Mehta ruling FBI Steele Dossier, James Madison Project v Department of Justice, Nunes and Schiff Memos constitute public acknowledgement of existence of records

Judge Amit Mehta ruling FBI Steele Dossier, James Madison Project v Department of Justice, Nunes and Schiff Memos constitute public acknowledgement of existence of records

“If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed”…Wikileaks: Doug Band to John Podesta

“James Comey’s decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.”…Daily Mail October 30, 2016

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
JAMES MADISON PROJECT, et al., ))
Plaintiffs, ))
v. ) Case No. 17-cv-00144 (APM)
)
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., ))
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
INDICATIVE RULING AND ORDER AS TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Once more, this court is called upon to opine on the legal consequences of President Donald J. Trump’s declassification of information concerning the “Dossier”—the 35-page compilation of memoranda prepared by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele concerning Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and alleged ties between Russia and then
candidate Trump. Cf. BuzzFeed, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Case No. 17-mc-02429-APM, 2018 WL 3719231 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2018). In this case, the court must decide whether the February 2018 public release of two congressionally drafted memoranda—popularly known as the “Nunes Memo” and the “Schiff Memo”—vitiates Defendants’ Glomar responses to Plaintiffs’ demand for
records concerning a “two-page synopsis” of the Dossier.

The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. See generally James Madison Project v. Dep’t of Justice (“James Madison I”), 302 F. Supp. 3d 12 (D.D.C. 2018), appeal docketed, No. 18-5014 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). It held that neither the President’s tweets and other public statements, nor the public statements of other high-ranking government officials,
constituted a public acknowledgment that the documents sought by Plaintiffs James Madison Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of
2
Project and Josh Gerstein in fact exist and are possessed by Defendant agencies. See id. Plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal, but shortly after moved for reconsideration in light of the Nunes Memo’s release. Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal, however, divested the court of jurisdiction over this matter. See United States v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293, 1302 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (“The
filing of a notice of appeal . . . ‘confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’” (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). Accordingly, Plaintiffs now ask the court to indicate, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, that it would grant their Motion upon remand. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(3). Defendants assert that reconsideration is not warranted
and urge the court to deny the Motion.

For the reasons that follow, the court finds that the disclosures contained in the Nunes and Schiff Memos do constitute a public acknowledgement of the existence of the records sought by Plaintiffs from Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and that the FBI therefore may no longer maintain its Glomar responses. Accordingly, the court indicates that, upon remand, the
court would grant Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Reconsideration as to the FBI. Plaintiffs’ Motion as to the remaining agency Defendants, however, is denied.

I.
The court already has written extensively about this matter, and so only will summarize the relevant facts and procedural history here.
A.
In January 2017, Plaintiffs submitted a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to four federal agencies—the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 2 of 13
3
Agency, the National Security Agency (collectively, “Intelligence Community Defendants”), and the FBI—for the following information:
(1) The two-page “synopsis” provided by the U.S. Government to
President-Elect Trump with respect to allegations that Russian
Government operatives had compromising personal and financial
information about President-Elect Trump (“Item One”);
(2) Final determinations regarding the accuracy (or lack thereof) of
any of the individual factual claims listed in the two page synopsis
(“Item Two”); and
(3) Investigative files relied upon in reaching the final
determinations referenced in [Item Two] (“Item Three”).
James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 17. These responses remained unanswered at the time Plaintiffs filed this action. See id. 17–18.

Thereafter, within the context of this litigation, Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ FOIA demands. All Defendants asserted Glomar responses as to Items Two and Three—that is, they refused to admit or deny whether any responsive records even exist. See id. at 18. As to Item One, only the FBI advanced a Glomar response, while the Intelligence Community Defendants admitted the existence and their possession of the “two-page ‘synopsis’” but invoked FOIA Exemptions 1
and 3 to justify withholding the document in its entirety. See id. Defendants then moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in full on January 4, 2018. See id. at 17. The court held that: (1) Defendants’ Glomar responses to Items Two and Three were proper, see id. at 31–35; (2) the FBI’s Glomar response to Item One was appropriate, see id. at 29–31; and (3) the
Intelligence Community Defendants’ withholding of the two-page synopsis was justified, see id. at 35–36. Plaintiffs then noticed an appeal from the court’s ruling. See Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 38.
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 3 of 13

B.
But then the ground shifted. On February 2, 2018, President Trump authorized release of a memorandum prepared by the majority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, commonly referred to as the Nunes Memo. See Pls.’ Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 40
[hereinafter Pls.’ Mot.], Ex. 1, ECF No. 40-1 [hereinafter Nunes Memo]. Among other things, the Nunes Memo revealed that former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele drafted the Dossier; that, in October 2016, the FBI relied in part on portions of the Dossier’s contents to secure a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) warrant as to Carter Page, a former campaign
advisor to then-candidate Trump; that, in parallel with pursuing the Page FISA warrant, the FBI was undertaking efforts to corroborate the allegations contained within the Dossier; and, critically for this case, that “in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier.” See id. at 4–6.1

A few weeks later, the President authorized the declassification and release of even more information about the Dossier’s origin and use. On February 24, 2018, a rebuttal to the Nunes Memo, written by the minority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, became public. See Pls.’ Notice of Suppl. Info., ECF No. 41, Ex. 1, ECF No. 41-1 [hereinafter Schiff Memo]. The rebuttal, better known as the “Schiff Memo,” revealed, among other things,
that Steele shared his “reporting . . . with an FBI agent . . . through the end of October 2016”; and, importantly for this case, that “[t]he FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele’s reporting.” Id. at 5, 8. As a result of the release of the Nunes and Schiff Memos, there is now in the public domain meaningful information about how the FBI acquired the Dossier and
how the agency used it to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
1 Citations to both the Nunes and Schiff Memos are to the page numbers electronically generated by CM/ECF.
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 4 of 13

Not surprisingly, after the release of the Nunes Memo, Plaintiffs asked this court to reconsider the validity of Defendants’ Glomar responses. See generally Pls.’ Mot. Moving under Rule 60(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs argued that the information contained in the Memos “undoubtedly would have conclusively and substantively changed the outcome of the present case if it had been available prior to this Court’s” summary judgment ruling.
Id. at 6. Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that “nothing to which [Plaintiffs] refer in the Nunes Memo or in the Schiff Memo addresses the two-page synopsis that is the subject of plaintiffs’ request.” Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 43 [hereinafter Defs.’ Opp’n], at 2. As Defendants put it: “The Schiff Memo, like the Nunes Memo, is devoid, in fact, of any reference
to the two-page synopsis” and thus “[n]o waiver of the Glomar responses . . . results[.]” Id. at 3.

In view of the parties’ positions, the issue before the court is: Does the President’s approved release of the information contained in the Nunes and Schiff Memos constitute an official acknowledgement of the existence of records requested by Plaintiffs, such that Defendants’ Glomar responses are now invalid? The court turns now to answer that question.

II.
A.
Rule 60(b)(2) allows for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding based on “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). In order for evidence to meet the requirements of Rule 60(b)(2), the following criteria must be met:
(1) the newly discovered evidence is of facts that existed at the time
of trial or other dispositive proceeding; (2) the party seeking relief
was justifiably ignorant of the evidence despite due diligence;
(3) the evidence is admissible and is of such importance that it
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 5 of 13

probably would have changed the outcome; and (4) the evidence is
not merely cumulative or impeaching.
West v. Holder, 309 F.R.D. 54, 57 (D.D.C. 2015) (citation omitted).
There is no dispute here that both the Nunes and Schiff Memos satisfy the first, second, and fourth prongs for purposes of Rule 60(b)(2). See Bain v. MJJ Prods., Inc., 751 F.3d 642, 647 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (defining “newly discovered evidence”). Thus, the sole question for the court is whether those Memos are “of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome” of the court’s summary judgment ruling. West, 309 F.R.D. at 57; see also In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 156 F.R.D. 18, 22 (D.D.C. 1994) (noting that evidence is “newly discovered” under Rule 60(b)(2) if it is “of such a material and controlling nature as will probably change the outcome” (citing Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 371 n.12 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).
B.
It is helpful to start with a recap of the principles that govern how to evaluate a Glomar response. To overcome a Glomar response, the plaintiff can either challenge the agency’s position that disclosing the existence of a record will cause harm under the FOIA exemption asserted by the agency, or the plaintiff can show that the agency has “officially acknowledged” the existence
of records that are the subject of the request. See James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 20. If the requester takes the second route—as Plaintiffs do here—she “must pinpoint an agency record that both matches the plaintiff’s request and has been publicly and officially acknowledged by the agency.” Id. at 21 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Moore v. CIA, 666 F.3d 1330, 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2011)).2
2 Although drafted by Legislative Branch staff, Defendants here do not dispute that the Nunes and Schiff Memos constitute official public statements of the President that could give rise to a Glomar waiver. Cf. James Madison I,
302 F. Supp. 3d at 24 (The D.C. Circuit has recognized that ‘[a] disclosure made by the President, or by [an] advisor acting as “instructed” by the President,’ is attributable to executive branch agencies for purposes of the official
acknowledgement doctrine.” (quoting Am. Civ. Liberties Union (ACLU) v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422, 429 n.7 (D.C. Cir. Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 6 of 13

Generally speaking, there are two ways in which a plaintiff can establish that a public statement officially acknowledges the existence of a document. The plaintiff can either (1) identify a statement that “on [its] face” constitutes an official acknowledgement of a document’s existence, or (2) point to a statement that, when combined with the “context in which it is made,” leads to an
“inescapable inference that the requested record[ ] in fact exist[s].” See James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 22. Under either approach, the “official acknowledgement” doctrine must be construed “strictly.” Id. at 23 (quoting Moore, 666 F.3d at 1333). And, “whether expressly or by inference, the official statement must render it ‘neither logical nor plausible’ for the agency to
justify its position that disclosure would reveal anything not already in the public domain.” Id. at 24 (quoting Am. Civ. Liberties Union (ACLU) v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422, 430 (D.C. Cir. 2013)).

III.
Plaintiffs argue that the Nunes and Schiff Memos, both directly and by way of inference, “pinpoint” the existence of agency records that “match” their FOIA requests. They contend that both Memos disclose the FBI’s efforts to verify or refute the accuracy of the Dossier’s allegations, and note that the Nunes Memo expressly mentions “a source validation report conducted by an
independent unit within [the] FBI [that] assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.” Nunes Memo at 6 (emphasis added); see Pls.’ Mot. at 2–3. The referenced “source validation report,” they assert, “matches” their requests for “final determinations regarding the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the allegations summarized in the two-page synopsis, as well as 2013)). In fact, the Nunes Memo’s release caused the Department of Justice to withdraw its Glomar response in a different FOIA case before this court, involving a demand for records relating to the Carter Page FISA warrant application. See James Madison Project v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Case No. 17-cv-00597-APM (D.D.C.), Def.’s Resp. to Order, ECF No. 32, at 1 (“Defendant withdraws the Glomar response as to the existence of the Page FISA applications and orders identified in the Nunes Memo.”). Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 7 of 13

investigative files (if any) relied upon in rendering those final determinations.” Pls.’ Mot. at 2–3 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 17.

Defendants’ response is straightforward. Distinguishing the Dossier from the two-page synopsis, they concede that both Memos disclose the FBI’s efforts to corroborate the Dossier’s allegations, but assert that nothing in the Memos “addresses the two-page synopsis that is the subject of plaintiffs’ requests.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 2. In other words, they argue, neither the Nunes Memo nor the Schiff Memo contains reference to any document that matches the “final
determinations” or “investigative files” about the synopsis that Plaintiffs seek, so their Glomar responses remain on firm ground.

Plaintiffs have the better of the argument.
A.
Item One: The Two-Page Synopsis. Recall, only the FBI asserted a Glomar response to Plaintiffs’ demand for a copy of the two-page synopsis presented to President-elect Trump. James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 18. The Nunes Memo makes the FBI’s position no longer tenable because it expressly refers to the document Plaintiffs seek. Specifically, the Nunes Memo states:
“[I]n early January 2017, [FBI] Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—‘salacious and unverified.’” Nunes Memo at 6 (emphasis added). Read in context, the Nunes Memo’s reference to “a summary of the Steele dossier” presented to President-elect Trump in “early January 2017”
matches Plaintiffs’ first demand: a “two-page ‘synopsis’ provided by the U.S. Government to President-Elect Trump with respect to allegations that Russian Government operatives had compromising personal and financial information about President-Elect Trump.”
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 8 of 13

To begin with, the phrase “a summary of the Steele dossier” clearly refers to a written summary. Interpreting that phrase to refer to an oral summary would be grammatically unnatural.

The Nunes Memo uses the past tense of the verb “brief,” the preposition “on,” and the article “a” before “summary” to describe what Director Comey did with respect to “a summary of the Steele Dossier.” Reading those terms together conveys that Director Comey dispensed information as to some tangible object—a briefing “on” “a summary.” To say that the Director “briefed” the
President-elect “on” “an” oral summary would make little sense. If the briefing concerned only an oral summation, then the phrase “a summary of” to modify “the Steele Dossier” would be entirely unnecessary (“Director Comey briefed President Trump on . . . the Steele Dossier”). Thus, understanding “summary” to refer to a “written summary” is the natural reading.

Context supplies other evidence of a match between Plaintiffs’ Item One request and the Nunes Memo’s reference to “a summary of the Dossier.” The terms “synopsis”—used by Plaintiffs—and “summary”—used by the Nunes Memo—are, of course, synonyms. The interchangeability of those words points to the same document. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ demand for a document pertaining to “allegations that Russian Government operatives had compromising
and personal financial information about President-Elect Trump” is an unmistakable reference to what the Nunes and Schiff Memos identify as the Dossier. See Nunes Memo at 5 (stating that the “‘dossier’ [was] compiled by Christopher Steele” who was tasked with “obtain[ing] derogatory
information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia”); cf. Schiff Memo at 3–4 (“DOJ’s applications did not otherwise rely on Steele’s reporting, including any ‘salacious’ allegations about Trump, and the FBI never paid Steele for this reporting.”). And the Nunes Memo’s description of what Director Comey did with the “summary” is consistent with a January 10, 2017, CNN article that
Plaintiffs incorporated in their FOIA request to the agencies “for context.” See Answer, ECF No.
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 9 of 13

8, Ex. A, ECF No. 8-1 [hereinafter FOIA Request], at 2; Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 14, Ex. G, ECF No. 14-14 [hereinafter CNN Article]. The CNN article reported that allegations regarding Russian possession of “compromising personal and financial information” about the President-elect were “presented” in a two-page synopsis to President-elect Trump during the first
week of January 2017 by “four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs,” including FBI Director Comey. CNN Article at 1–2; see also FOIA Request at 3 (stating the “two page synopsis included allegations derived from a 35 page ‘dossier’ allegedly compiled by a former British intelligence
operative” and published by BuzzFeed). The Nunes Memo confirms this description of events.

It places Director Comey in a briefing of President-elect Trump regarding a summary of the Dossier in January 2017. These parallels lead the court to conclude that the “synopsis” sought by Plaintiffs is in fact the “summary” acknowledged by the Nunes Memo.

It is true that the Nunes Memo does not use the word “synopsis.” But that is not fatal. The context in which the official acknowledgement was made leads to the obvious inference that the FBI possesses the two-page synopsis Plaintiffs seek. Is it reasonable to conclude that the synopsis does not exist or that the FBI does not possess it, even though the FBI has, in the words of the Nunes Memo, undertaken a “rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele’s reporting”? Of
course not. No reasonable person would accept as plausible that the nation’s top law enforcement agency does not have the two-page synopsis in light of these officially acknowledged facts of its actions. As the D.C. Circuit observed in ACLU, “[t]he Glomar doctrine is in large measure a judicial construct, an interpretation of FOIA exemptions that flows from their purpose rather than their express language.” 710 F.3d at 431. To accept the FBI’s Glomar response as to Item One in this case would “stretch that doctrine too far.” Id.
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 10 of 13

By authorizing the release of the Nunes Memo to make known the existence of the “summary” of the Dossier on which he was briefed, the President has publicly acknowledged the existence of the two-page synopsis in Director Comey’s possession. The FBI therefore can no longer assert a Glomar response to Plaintiffs’ demand for that record.
B.
Items Two and Three: Final Determinations and Investigative Files. For much the same reasons already discussed, it remains no longer logical nor plausible for the FBI to maintain that it cannot confirm nor deny the existence of documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ second and third requests: (1) “[f]inal determinations regarding the accuracy (or lack thereof) of any of the individual factual claims listed in the two page synopsis” and (2) the “[i]nvestigative files relied
upon in reaching [such] final determinations.”

The Memos reveal that the FBI has undertaken substantial efforts to confirm the accuracy of the Dossier’s reporting. The Nunes Memo expressly acknowledges the existence of “a source validation report,” conducted by an “independent unit within [the] FBI,” which “assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.” Nunes Memo at 6. The Schiff Memo takes a more
favorable view of a portion of Steele’s reporting, and provides even more information about the FBI’s efforts. It explains that “Steele’s information about [Carter] Page was consistent with the FBI’s assessment of Russian intelligence efforts to recruit him and his connections to Russian persons of interest,” Schiff Memo at 6, and that the FBI had reached a sufficient level of confidence
in Steele’s reporting about Carter Page’s alleged coordination with Russian officials to include that information in a FISA warrant application, id. at 8. Additionally, the Schiff Memo states:
“The FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele’s reporting, including with regard to Page.” Id. at 8. Unless the court is to believe that the FBI undertook these efforts Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 11 of 13

without creating any memoranda or other papers containing assessments about Steele’s reporting and did not gather files for that purpose—a wholly implausible proposition—the Nunes and Schiff Memos are “tantamount to an acknowledgment that the [FBI] has documents on [those] subject[s].” ACLU, 710 F.3d at 431.
Defendants counter that the absence of any express reference in the Memos to efforts to validate the synopsis, as opposed to the Dossier, allows them to stand on Glomar responses as to Items Two and Three. But that position defies logic. As a “summary” of the Dossier, Nunes Memo at 6, the synopsis undeniably contains some subset of the Dossier’s allegations. It is simply not plausible to believe that, to whatever extent the FBI has made efforts to verify Steele’s
reporting, some portion of that work has not been devoted to allegations that made their way into the synopsis. After all, if the reporting was important enough to brief the President-elect, then surely the FBI thought enough of those key charges to attempt to verify their accuracy. It will be up to the FBI to determine which of the records in its possession relating to the reliability of the
Dossier concerns Steele’s reporting as discussed in the synopsis. Accordingly, the FBI has waived its Glomar responses as to Items Two and Three of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.

The same cannot be said, however, about the Intelligence Community Defendants. Neither the Nunes Memo nor the Schiff Memo makes any reference to any effort by the Intelligence Community Defendants to determine the accuracy (or lack thereof) of any of the individual factual claims contained in the synopsis. Although an official presidential statement can vitiate a Glomar
response for an executive branch agency, see ACLU, 710 F.3d at 429 n.7, the court does not read Circuit precedent to go so far as to say that the President’s acknowledgment of the existence of records by one agency categorically precludes every part of the Executive Branch from asserting a Glomar response. Rather, if an official presidential acknowledgement is limited to a single
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 12 of 13

component of the Executive Branch, as is the case here, other unrelated components may still invoke Glomar. The court’s conclusion is consistent with the principle that, when the President makes an official acknowledgment as to a particular agency, in that capacity he acts solely as the “parent” of that agency and that agency alone—not the entire Executive Branch. Cf. id. (explaining
that the rule that one agency’s waiver of a Glomar response does not bind another, unrelated agency “does not apply . . . where the disclosures are made by an authorized representative of the agency’s parent. A disclosure made by the President, or by his counterterrorism advisor acting as ‘instructed’ by the President, falls on the ‘parent agency’ side of that line.” (internal citations
omitted)). To adopt the contrary rule would have far-reaching consequences that this court is not prepared to accept, in the absence of clear guidance from the Circuit. Accordingly, the court finds that disclosures contained in the Nunes and Schiff Memos are not official acknowledgements that preclude the Intelligence Community Defendants from maintaining Glomar responses as to Items
Two and Three of Plaintiffs’ request.

IV.
For the foregoing reasons, consistent with Rule 62.1, the court states that, on remand, the court would grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration as to all of the FBI’s Glomar responses.
The court, however, denies the Motion for Reconsideration as to the Intelligence Community Defendants’ Glomar responses to Plaintiffs’ second and third FOIA requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(2).

Dated: August 16, 2018 Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 13 of 13

https://www.scribd.com/document/386451281/FBI-Foia-Ruling#download&from_embed

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Justice Dept. enema required, Strzok firing not enough, J Christian Adams warning, Attorney Ty Clevenger FOIA requests and Transparency Project, DOJ blocking Set Rich info release

Justice Dept. enema required, Strzok firing not enough, J Christian Adams warning, Attorney Ty Clevenger FOIA requests and Transparency Project, DOJ blocking Set Rich info release

“Why was Tony West, who helped Obama keep his records hidden at taxpayer expense, promoted to Acting Associate Attorney General, the third highest official at the Justice Department?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has the Department of Justice not been cleansed (given an enema)?”…Citizen Wells

“I know that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak.”…Kim Dotcom

 

J. Christian Adams, former Justice Department attorney, warned us in 2010.

“On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter -intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”
“Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.”

https://citizenwells.com/2014/06/09/j-christian-adams-explains-obama-use-of-alinsky-rules-for-radicals-challengers-to-obama-labeled-marginalized-compartmentalized-birthers-impeachment-proponents-made-to-look-crazy/

I have probably spent the greatest amount of time researching relative to reporting on the Seth Rich murder.

I vowed I would not forget it.

We deserve the truth.

There have been a number of FOIA requests for release of information regarding the Seth Rich murder and “investigations.”

I kept looking for a followup on the Judicial Watch request.

Attorney Ty Clevenger has made a number of FOIA requests as well as filing lawsuits and provided updates.

http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017.09.01-Seth-Rich-FOIA-request.pdf

“Federal lawsuit seeks records about Seth Rich murder”

“This morning I filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that asks a federal judge in Brooklyn to order the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice to release records concerning the murder of former Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich.

Back in October, I wrote about the U.S. Department of Justice ordering the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. to release records about the murder, but since that time not a single record has been produced.  Around the same time, the FBI refused to search for records in its Washington Field Office, even though that is where the records are most likely to be found.  The lawsuit notes that the FBI has a history of trying to hide records from FOIA requestors and Congress.

I also asked the court to order the National Security Administration to release all of its communications with members of Congress regarding Seth Rich, Julian Assange, and Kim Dotcom, among others.

As you are probably aware, Mr. Rich’s parents filed suit this week against Fox News, producer Malia Zimmerman, and frequent guest Ed Butowsky.  I think that was a serious tactical error.  All of the defendants now have the legal right to subpoena documents and witnesses, and you can be sure they will use that power aggressively.

THE TRANSPARENCY PROJECT

With help from several supporters, I’ve organized The Transparency Project, a nonprofit corporation headquartered in Texas. If you want to support the Seth Rich litigation, you can find out how at Tproject.org. The website is a little primitive, but I plan to update it soon.”

Read more:

http://lawflog.com/?p=1912

The Transparency Project

“The Transparency Project is a nonprofit organization that fights political corruption, particularly in the judiciary and the legal profession. TTP was organized by Ty Clevenger, an attorney who grew tired of watching judges and lawyers get away with things that would send most people to prison.  Ty has forced two federal judges into retirement, triggered a grand jury investigation of the Texas Attorney General (who was subsequently indicted), prompted the indictment and conviction of a corrupt district attorney, and sued bar prosecutors to force them to investigate Hillary Clinton’s lawyers for their roles in destroying email evidence.  TTP intends to purse similar cases.”

Read more:

http://tproject.org/

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Jack Burkman Seth Rich murder investigator alleges nearly killed by Kevin Doherty, Doherty briefly worked for Burkman’s Profiling Project, “This in my mind makes the whole Seth story stranger and stranger,”

Jack Burkman Seth Rich murder investigator alleges nearly killed by Kevin Doherty, Doherty briefly worked for Burkman’s Profiling Project, “This in my mind makes the whole Seth story stranger and stranger,”

“I know that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak.”…Kim Dotcom

“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,”
“And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…Attorney David Schippers, Clinton investigator

“Burkman said in an interview that he considered Selig like a brother and was badly shaken by his friend’s death.”
“The tragically ironic part is Glenn’s last words to me were, ‘Be careful,’” Burkman said. “It’s just a tragedy — terrible.””…Politico Jan. 24, 2018

 

From the Washington Post March 20, 2018.

“Lobbyist says he was nearly killed by man he hired to investigate Seth Rich’s death”

“Burkman, a conservative lobbyist who has also raised money for Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign official who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, and protested gay athletes in the NFL, is used to controversy. But Doherty’s arrest Saturday by Arlington County police on charges of malicious wounding and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony caps a saga stranger than Burkman’s own conspiracy theories.

“It’s a horror story,” Burkman, of Arlington, said in an interview Monday afternoon. He is still recovering after being shot several times and run over by an SUV last Tuesday.

Doherty briefly worked for Burkman’s Profiling Project, which was formed to build a psychological portrait of Rich’s likely killer. Burkman was offering a six-figure reward for information on the slaying of Rich, which police have determined was most likely a random robbery but many conservatives have claimed was part of a political conspiracy.

Burkman said Doherty presented an impressive resume — ex-Marine, ex-special agent — and did good work. But tension quickly developed. In Burkman’s view, Doherty began speaking to reporters out of turn and tried to take over the investigation.

Doherty’s military background could not immediately be confirmed.

“He became somewhat angry because he thought the Profiling Project belonged to him,” Burkman said. In July, he cut Doherty loose and sent him a cease and desist letter.

“I just figured the matter was closed,” Burkman said. “But what happened is, I guess, he was simmering and simmering and simmering.”

In February, Burkman had moved on to a new investigation. He had put out a call for whistleblowers in the FBI, offering $25,000 for any information exposing wrongdoing in the presidential election.”

“The last drop was supposed to be “the big one” — the full inspector general report on McCabe, which still has not been released. Instead, when Burkman bent over to pull the papers out from under the cone, he was shot in the buttocks and thigh. As he ran out of the garage with his dachshund in his arms, he was hit by an SUV.

He said the car backed up to hit him again.

“It looked like he was coming to kill me,” Burkman said. But he said a woman watching from a window of the hotel screamed. A guard came running and the SUV sped off, Burkman said.”

“Burkman said he is now traveling with security. But the experience has not soured him on conspiracy theories. His profiling project concluded that Rich was shot by a hired killer, and he wonders if Doherty was working for someone else.

He has not given up on investigating Rich’s death, whose family just sued Fox News for publishing a false story linking their son to WikiLeaks.

“This in my mind makes the whole Seth story stranger and stranger,” Burkman said.”

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/lobbyist-says-he-was-nearly-killed-by-man-he-hired-to-investigate-seth-richs-death/2018/03/19/a4261e48-2baa-11e8-8688-e053ba58f1e4_story.html?utm_term=.8a879669e277

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/