Tag Archives: William Barr

Inspector General Urges Ethics Review at Federal Election Commission Following ProPublica Report

August 15, 2021 Creative Commons

The FEC’s inspector general has called for the agency to review its policies and internal controls after ProPublica revealed a key employee’s undisclosed ties to Trump.

The inspector general for the Federal Election Commission is calling on the agency to review its ethics policies and internal controls after a ProPublica investigation last year revealed that a senior manager openly supported Donald Trump and maintained a close relationship with a Republican attorney who went on to serve as the 2016 Trump campaign’s top lawyer.

The report by ProPublica raised questions about the impartiality of the FEC official, Debbie Chacona, a civil servant who oversees the unit responsible for keeping unlawful contributions out of U.S. political campaigns. The division’s staffers are supposed to adhere to a strict ethics code and forgo any public partisan activities because such actions could imply preferential treatment for a candidate or party and jeopardize the commission’s credibility.

In its findings, the inspector general said Chacona, head of the FEC’s Reports Analysis Division, or RAD, did not improperly intervene in a review of the Trump inaugural committee’s fundraising and acted “consistent with relevant law and policy” by allowing career analysts to handle the filings.

But the inspector general said “it is important to address the ethical principle that federal employees should avoid even the appearance of impropriety.” It added that the FEC’s “unique mission raises heightened concerns when allegations of personal or political bias are raised against FEC senior personnel that could undermine the public’s confidence in the agency” and recommended the commission “evaluate the current agency policies on ethical behavior and update them, as may be appropriate.”

Chacona displayed her support for Trump in Facebook posts, including one in which she posed with her family around a “Make America Great Again” sign at Trump’s January 2017 inaugural. Separately, emails obtained by ProPublica showed that she also consulted regularly on matters personal and professional with the Republican lawyer, Donald McGahn, when he was an FEC commissioner from 2008 to September 2013.

After Trump’s election, the fundraising practices of his inaugural committee prompted complaints that the FEC failed to properly examine contributions. As head of RAD, Chacona signed off on amended filings by the committee intended to address some of those complaints even though the revised reports continued to list problematic donations, including ones from donors whose addresses didn’t exist in public records.

The 300-employee FEC is an independent regulatory agency that was created by Congress to enforce campaign finance law. It is headed by six presidentially appointed commissioners, four of whom must vote together for the agency to take any official action, a requirement that was meant to bolster nonpartisan compromise but has resulted in chronic gridlock.

The inspector general also took issue with the way the FEC regulates presidential inaugural committees, which are nonprofit entities separate from campaign committees. Trump’s inaugural committee raised a record-breaking $107 million from more than 1,000 contributors. Its initial disclosure report was 510 pages.

The inspector general found that unlike with campaign committees, FEC policy confers “broad, subjective discretion to the RAD senior manager to determine what potential violations of law warrant further inquiry” when it comes to inaugural committees. It called such a standard “ill-defined and subjective,” cautioning that it could create “a reasonable likelihood of inconsistent results and arbitrary or capricious application (in fact or appearance).”

The inspector general also said that unlike political committees, which file their reports to the FEC electronically, inaugural committee disclosure reports are filed on paper to the commission and then manually reviewed by agency staffers — a system the inspector general said was “antiquated and lacks adequate internal controls.”

Asked what the agency has done to address the appearance of a conflict of interest at RAD and whether the agency planned on adopting any of the inspector general recommendations, an FEC spokesperson declined to comment.

McGahn, who was appointed White House counsel after serving as the Trump campaign’s top lawyer, now heads the government regulations group at the law firm Jones Day. He did not respond to messages seeking comment; in a response for the earlier ProPublica story, he said he doesn’t comment on “nonsense.” Chacona did not respond to a message seeking comment. A spokesperson for Trump’s inaugural committee didn’t return a message seeking comment.

The inspector general said that it interviewed FEC lawyers and RAD staffers, and that it obtained and reviewed agency records to conduct its inquiry. Commissioners were notified of the investigators’ findings at the end of July.

With its unprecedented haul and its questionable outlays, Trump’s inaugural committee drew swift attention from journalists and regulators. The Washington, D.C., attorney general has sued the committee, accusing it of enriching the Trump family business by spending lavishly at Trump-owned properties, claims the committee has denied in court papers. Separately, federal prosecutors subpoenaed the committee’s donor records as part of an inquiry into illegal contributions made by foreign nationals.

Both inaugural and political committees are prohibited from accepting contributions from foreign nationals. But Trump’s inaugural committee included in its disclosure reports donations from contributors outside the U.S., and RAD relied on the word of the committee that the donors were indeed U.S. citizens, the inspector general report found. Investigators took issue with that practice. They noted that RAD’s policy of accepting a committee’s “self-certification” wasn’t memorialized in any policy, and they recommended that the division set a threshold when such a contribution would trigger further inquiry to independently verify the source of the money.

Fred Wertheimer, whose advocacy group Democracy 21 helped file a 2017 FEC complaint against Trump’s inaugural committee, which the agency’s general counsel later dismissed, said the head of RAD should have recused herself from overseeing the committee’s filings.

“In my view Ms. Chacona had a clear appearance of conflict and never should’ve gone anywhere near the inaugural committee’s report,” said Wertheimer, who was derided by Chacona and McGahn in the email exchanges obtained by ProPublica.

by Jake Pearson for ProPublica, via Creative Commons [Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)]. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Recent Articles:

Find books on Business, Money, Finance and Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Breaking News, Politics

Portland & Trump’s Federal Presence: A Short Fascist History of Violent Attacks on Political Foes

Video July 24, 2020 Danny Leeds

https://video-lynxotic.akamaized.net/Gestapo-Trump.mp4

Video Ad from Political Action CommitTee Really American PAC

We are seeing Hourly Newsflashes as Trump tests his ability to send a “private” militia into American cities under the fabricated necessity of countering of “threats” to federal buildings.

The recent and unfolding events in Portland and the real threats of using similar force and tactics across the US represent a new level of crisis for this election year. A false narrative with exaggerated so-called “threats” to buildings by groups of, in reality, peaceful protesters who are being labeled criminals, terrorists and are at times suffering beatings, tear gas and even kidnapping, all at the hands of unidentified federal agents.

There has been an extreme and seemingly panicked barrage of fabricated emergencies all centered around the continued, mostly peaceful, protests originally ignited by the murder of George Floyd and the BLM focused demonstrations that followed.

Trump has blamed “violent anarchists” who he claims are part of the “radical left” and are allied with Democrats, and that these vaguely designated groups have created “a shocking explosion of shootings, killings, murders and heinous crimes of violence.”

With the false bravado of a man enamored with his own fantasy of power he intoned: “This bloodshed must end,” and “This bloodshed will end.”

Many who believe in American Democracy are left searching for these crimes and this emergency, and where exactly the connections are that, somehow show, the “radical left” is behind any violent crimes. Further, crimes that are more obviously, to the degree that crimes are being committed at all, being committed by a scattered and relatively small group of unaffiliated individuals.

Instead, it is the trumped-up response which appears to rational observers to be an attempt to provoke the very “crimes” that he has vowed to stop (and which he has imagined or exaggerated for the purpose of political theater). And further, from all appearances, there is a coordinated effort by the federal government, led by Bill Barr and various unconfirmed “interim” or “acting” department heads, to create a coterie of paramilitary forces that can be used by Trump to act with physical force and violence in any way he sees fit.

As this bizarre and unprecedented attack on democracy is unfolding, even republican, right wing, former members of the conservative establishment are shocked. Here are some recent quotes and headlines:

MSNBC: ‘Speechless’: Madeleine Albright reacts to deployment of federal agents in U.S. cities

“For a President and an administration that calls itself ‘law and order,’ they have broken the law, and are creating disorder.”
Fmr. Sec. of State Madeleine Albright

“What is really at stake is the delegitimizing of Democrats altogether before the 2020 election. Today Jenna Ellis, senior legal adviser to the Trump campaign and one of Trump’s personal lawyers tweeted: “No Democrat should EVER AGAIN be elected in the United States in any capacity.”
THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL MILITIA ; IN SEARCH OF VIOLENT ANARCHISTS BY HEATHER COX RICHARDSON as seen in MOYERS ON DEMOCRACY

So Tom Ridge, another homeland security secretary under Bush, has also opened fire, noting that DHS’s mission is to protect against “global terrorism” and was “not established to be the president’s personal militia.” “It would be a cold day in hell before I would consent to a unilateral, uninvited intervention into one of my cities,” Ridge told Michael Smerconish.
Trump’s authoritarian crackdown is so bad that even some in the GOP are blasting it – Greg Sergent, Washington Post

Even Republicans are warning Trump’s DHS is turning into ‘the president’s personal militia’ – AlterNet

“That kind of activity is the activity of a police state, and this president and this attorney general seem to be doing everything they possibly can to impose Gestapo activities in local communities, and that is what I have been warning about for a long time. I do believe that this election is all about the preservation of the greatest democracy that this country has ever known,” Clyburn said Monday during an interview on CNN.
South Carolina Rep. John Clyburn

“I think it’s unconstitutional and dangerous and heading towards fascism,” he said.
Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro

And not not-senate-confirmed “acting” Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security had this general response:

“DHS is answering the President’s call to use our law enforcement personnel across the country to protect our historic landmarks. We won’t stand idly by while violent anarchists and rioters seek not only to vandalize and destroy the symbols of our nation, but to disrupt law and order and sow chaos in our communities.”
Acting DHS Secretary Chad F. Wolf

Hitler, Mussolini and Trump: a short glance at historical similarities

Hitler

In the early 1920s, long before Hitler was in power in Germany, he was a politician with a need for bodyguards. In addition, his newly formed Nazi party encouraged followers to commit violent attacks against leftists and outsiders (jews). The SA a.k.a. the brown shirts were a personal militia comprised of violent thugs attacking whoever Hitler designated as the enemy of his vision for Germany. By 1933, there were over 3 million members.

Violent attacks occurred often against any individuals or group that dared to disagree with Hitler’s politics or were just among the declared enemies, with Jews and leftists at the top of the list. Through the physical intimidation of individuals and opposing political groups, his rise to power, in steps, was made possible.

The idea that a political movement “needs” a violent para-military component is a common thread in the history of various fascist dictators and their rise to power. Designating political enemies as “terrorists” (such as Trump is trying to do to antifa). Encouraging violence against them, using a justification of “safety and protection” of the general public that supposedly sides with the “vision of law and order” put forth by the would be dictator is a common theme from Hitler’s rise that we are also seeing today.

Mussolini

Similar to Hitler’s “BrownShirts”, Mussolini had his “Blackshirts”. The similarities between Hitler’s rise and that of Mussolini are well documented. Mussolini’s blueprint for Fascist power was later repeated in Germany, if the similarities being coincidental or by design is unimportant.

Racism, hatred of foreigners (in Italy’s case the prime scapegoats being Africans and Asians to the south and east) and violent intimidation of anyone who questions his and his parties authority were the familiar script.

The similarities to the present day are the grave and serious issue, and the differences are what will decide our fate.

Trump

Unlike in the fascism stories above, Trump is already the elected President and the “leader of the free world”. It is important to note that “free” in that phrase means, among other things, free from fascist dictatorships. On the other hand, the recent events in portland and elsewhere show a serious and dangerous precedent where Trump is using the DHS and it’s “acting” director as if they are his version of the SA or even SS.

Perhaps the Gestapo is a more apt analogy, but there’s an element of this being a cobbled together band of thugs like the brown or blackshirts mentioned above as this was, apparently, a hastily crafted group of federal agencies that appear to have been gathered by Attorney General Bill Barr, rather than an organized long standing secret police force.

Unidentified stormtroopers. Unmarked cars. Kidnapping protesters and causing severe injuries in response to graffiti.

These are not the actions of a democratic republic.@DHSgov’s actions in Portland undermine its mission.

Trump & his stormtroopers must be stopped.
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) July 18, 2020

The consensus among those who would rather not see Trump find a way to take control of the US as a modern day Mussolini is that many, if not all, of the steps and actions taken thus far are dead wrong, even if they represent a convoluted way to break the intended spirit of US law and Constitution while maintaining a kind of shadow legality.

The now clichéd quote, famously from a John F Kennedy in a speech in 1961: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” nevertheless applies here to all men, women and children of this country.

An astounding thing about the historical tragedies surrounding the fascists rising to power in the first half of the 20th century is that, early on, when they could still have been stopped by a sufficiently outraged majority, the dangers were underestimated until it was too late.

“Never again” should be our response to that statement and we must be prepared to back it up, no matter what.

Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Politics, and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

News, Politics

Tired of Spin, Hype and Lies? Read the full text of Mueller’s Statement

May 29, 2019 Lynxotic News Staff

***If you want to know what he actually said, and you are interested in the future of the country, please read the full text here:

“Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.

I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.
The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign.
They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.
And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election. These indictments contain allegations.

And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood.

That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation.

The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned.

When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report.

The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election.
This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.

The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.

Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy.

Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report.

And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime.

That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.
We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General – as required by Department regulations. The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.

At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.

I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself – no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress.

Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.

The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.

It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.

Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.

These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments – that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you”

– Special Counsel Robert Mueller

Barr Does Passive-Aggressive Attack on Mueller in Senate

Video May 1, 2019 Danny Leeds

Showdown on discrepancies may follow…

“I don’t consider “Bob”, at this stage, a career prosecutor”
– Attorney General William Barr

Attorney General calls published letter “Snitty” and refuses to acknowledge Mueller’s Reputation. When asked if he made a memorandum of his conversation he sheepishly replied “huh?” Before admitting after further questioning that “someone” had taken notes of the call.

“why should you have them?”
– Attorney General William Barr, when asked if congress could be allowed to have a copy of the notes from the call

Lynxotic