July 31, 2017

Special Counsel, Ver. 2.0

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 12:24 pm

AFP_PD7D0loretta-lynchCrying Hillary

Twenty Republican members of the US House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, have formally requested that US Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein

“… appoint a second special counsel to investigate a plethora of matters connected to the 2016 election and its aftermath, including actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

Here is a link to the entire letter the House Judiciary submitted on July 27, 2017.

The seven-page letter signed by twenty Representatives (including Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho) makes a very readable and compelling case for appointing a second special counsel.

It will be interesting to see how the DoJ responds — if it can.  Assuming AG Sessions’ declared conflict was justified for matters surrounding the alleged interference by Russia, it would remain justified for the present request as well.  But beyond that, we wonder how any of the Obama holdovers in the DoJ and FBI on their respective Mahogany Rows and those now on the payroll of Mueller’s Muggers (Special Counsel, Ver. 1.0) who contributed very heavily to the failed Clinton presidential campaign could not conflict out as well.

July 29, 2017

Debbie Does Dulles

DWSchultzOn Monday, July 24, 2017, Special Agents of the US Capitol Police (USCP) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested Capitol Hill IT contractor Imran Awan as he tried to board an airplane at Dulles International Airport and fly to his homeland of Pakistan via Qatar.   The FBI affidavit supporting his arrest alleges Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, filed a fraudulent mortgage loan application.

Hina Alvi had already pulled their children out of school, stuffed over $12,000 in cash and some household goods in cardboard boxes, and left the United States (some might say “fled the United States”) for Pakistan.

Before July 24th, few readers could probably recall hearing anything about Imran Awan.   They might have heard something about some damaged computer equipment belonging to some members of Congress being found at a home rented by Awan and his wife.   They might have read deep into the already sketchy skews stories that one of the computers found belonged to Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  In fact, good ol’ Debbie threatened the USCP in public if it dared process the purloined computer for evidence.

Otherwise, because the AWAN storyline did not involve pimping unsubstantiated gossip about President Trump’s “collusion” with Russia, the national skews media weren’t especially interested.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  Move along.

Except there was and is something to see.

It seems that Representative Schultz had arranged for Industrious Imran to be the go-to IT contractor for several Democrat members of the House of Representatives, some of them on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.  In fact, Industrious Imran and his partners had each been raking in an unusually high amount of money from these contracts for several years.

OpenCdA urges our handful of readers to take the time and read the series of articles by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

There are quite a few reasonable and interesting questions likely to be asked by the USCP and the FBI to determine if the computers and the emails on them contained any personal or national security information that could be used to manipulate and control the members of Congress on behalf of any foreign intelligence service.

July 4, 2017

Not a Good Idea

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: — Bill @ 8:01 pm

DWI-blood-drawIn its Sunday skewspaper article very distastefully headlined Police Are Out for Blood, the Coeur d’Alene Press reported that Coeur d’Alene police officers are being trained and certified as phlebotomists so they can do field blood draws on persons suspected of driving under the influence of intoxicants.

OpenCdA has some concerns and questions we believe must be addressed by the Coeur d’Alene City Council before it applies its obligatory and ceremonial rubber stamp of approval to this proposed practice.

The skewspaper article failed to report what happens to the sample after it has been obtained by the officer.  Where and by whom is the actual analysis of the sample performed?  What will the Department’s policy be regarding timely delivery of the sample to the testing laboratory?

Of considerably greater concern is the skewspaper article’s implication that this policy and procedure is being proposed to circumvent an existing requirement that officer obtain a search warrant to perform a physiologically invasive, nonconsensual search of a suspect.  Our concern is prompted by these lines of the skewspaper article:


If an impaired motorist refuses to submit to a breathalyzer and police have probable cause the motorist is intoxicated, they must get a search warrant to draw blood at a hospital.

“Getting a search warrant takes a while,” Hagar said. “A lot of time, things are too busy and it takes a while.”

By reducing the time — getting a blood draw at the scene — police can get more accurate BACs, which can aid in prosecution, Hagar said.

If a search warrant is required now for a hospital phlebotomist to conduct a physically intrusive, involuntary, and nonconsensual search of the suspect’s body at the hospital, why won’t a search warrant also be required for a law enforcement officer to conduct a physically intrusive involuntary and nonconsensual search of the suspect’s body in the patrol car?

A reasonable inference from the article is that a suspect in the custody of a patrol officer in the field could be persuaded (coerced) into giving “voluntary, informed consent” for  a blood draw in the field.

We are also very concerned that some people are, to put it mildly, needle averse.  They may be able to tolerate a draw using a blood collection system composed of a multi-sample vacuum collection needle and a disposable tube holder in the hands of an experienced, non-threatening phlebotomist at the hospital.  The same equipment system in the hands of an arresting police officer begins to look more like a painful interrogation tool designed to elicit an involuntary admission or involuntary consent.

Are the police going to hold the suspect down while the newly-trained police officer draws blood if the suspect objects to the search?  How is that going to look on the video from the body camera?  Policy would mandate that from the beginning of the stop through the completion of the involuntary blood draw, there must be an unbroken,  clear, and intelligible video image with audio of the entire process.  Failure to rigidly adhere to the policy ought to administratively require the exclusion of all BAC evidence by the court in that case as presumptively involuntarily and illegally obtained.  In other words, before the evidence obtained from the blood draw is admitted, the court must require the state first prove the blood draw was lawful.  The audio-video evidence from the arresting officer’s body camera is the best way to prove that.

What’s next?  Police officers trained to catheterize suspects to obtain urine samples?  Officers trained to conduct colonoscopies to search for drug packets?

June 27, 2017

Are You Confused?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 3:27 pm

InvestigateAre you confused by all of the various federal investigations being allegedly reported by the skews media?

Fret no longer.

This YouTube video is the definitive explanation to every ongoing federal investigation.

You’re welcome.

June 10, 2017

Loyalty: Questions Not Asked

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 2:32 pm

AFP_PD7D0In his prepared Statement for the Record:  Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, June 8, 2017, former FBI Director James Comey recounted a private conversation between President Trump and him over dinner on January 27, 2017.  President Trump used the word “loyalty” several times in talking with Comey.

With absolute predictability the national skews media jumped on the word “loyalty” and its context as attributed to  President Trump and concluded that the President was demanding Comey’s loyalty as a condition of Comey’s keeping his job as Director of the FBI.

Loyalty to what or to whom?  To the Constitution?  To the President of the United States?  To Donald J. Trump?

Nowhere does Comey’s statement reflect that he (Comey) asked this question:  “Mr. President, you’ve mentioned ‘loyalty’ several times tonight.   As President of the United States, what exactly are your expectations for my loyalty as Director of the FBI?  What are your expectations how I will demonstrate the loyalty you describe?”

The questions would have been respectful and reasonable to identify and help resolve any misunderstandings between the President and Comey.   It was irresponsible for Comey not to ask them, especially since in his prepared statement, Comey says, “…, it is possible we understrood the phrase ‘honest loyalty’ differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further.  The term — honest loyalty — had helped end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should expect.”

How did Comey know that Comey’s own explanations had made clear what the President should expect?    How did he know how the President interpreted his explanations?  The answer is that Comey didn’t know.  Comey was afraid to ask the President questions to make sure he understood what the President meant by “loyalty.”  Comey wanted the “awkward conversation” to end.  Comey rationalized that seeking precision and clarity wouldn’t be productive.

In his subsequent sworn personal testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Comey wished that he had been stronger in his conversations with the President.

So do we.   The President and the nation deserved better than James Comey delivered.



June 8, 2017

Understanding the Loser’s Damage

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 11:42 am

winner booking mugshotWith her arrest on June 3, 2017, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, former US Air Force linguist and now former NSA contractor employee Reality Leigh Winner joins the recent list of brotherhood/sisterhood/undecidedhood traitors which includes Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and Hillary Clinton.    At least initially, Winner has been charged with removing classified material from a government facility and mailing it to a self-proclaimed news organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 793(e).

The classified material Winner has been charged with unlawfully removing was produced by a member of the US Intelligence Community.  She allegedly caused the material to be delivered to a website identifying itself as The Intercept_.   The Intercept_’s website proclaims itself to be “… an award-winning news organization that covers national security, politics, civil liberties, the environment, international affairs, technology, criminal justice, the media, and more. ”   In turn, The Intercept_ published an online article entitled Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election.  The online article links to the redacted but still classified five-page report.   Exposing national security information publicly does not automatically declassify the information.

It is possible and maybe likely that Winner’s defense attorney will try to understate the actual damage done to the national security caused by her alleged disclosure of the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information.  He may assert that some or most or maybe even all of the information in the report was already in the public domain.  He may even assert that federal officials had lawfully revealed it to various secretaries of state prior to the 2016 election so state election officials could closely examine their election hardware and software and take appropriate countermeasures to protect the integrity of the 2016 election.  If he does raise that as one defense theory, he might be partially correct.

Except …

Our US Intelligence Community seeks out, analyzes, and authenticates potential threats to the United States.   To the greatest extent possible, it determines the magnitude and quality of threats actually posed.  When neccesary to counteract the expected effects of a threat posed, the IC then prepares and releases timely, accurate, and appropriately complete finished intelligence to persons who have a need to know that information to perform their duties.  As noted above, that could include persons not specifically authorized and cleared to receive classified national security information.

So does that mean, for example, that Kootenai County elections officials would not receive essential information developed by the IC about how voting equipment and software can be compromised?  Or does it mean that the Spokane Explosives Disposal Unit would not learn about foreign terrorist techniques used to conceal explosives devices?

No.  The IC members work very hard to ensure that otherwise uncleared persons receive the sanitized information they need to do their jobs.

The key word is ‘sanitized.’   In intelligence-speak, ‘sanitized’ broadly refers to information from which authorized officials, usually the agency originally classifying the material,  have removed any and all information which the specific intended recipient does not need to do his job.  In order to be provided with the tested and approved countermeasure and install it, local officials do not need to know anything about the intelligence sources and methods that went into the report published by The Intercept_.

Which brings us to Reality Leigh Winner.

Some people will likely ask, “What was the harm in her releasing the report?  Shouldn’t elections officials have been given that information?”  The second question’s answer needs to come first, because it better leads into the answer to the first question.

Yes, the elections officials should have received through appropriate channels some of the information sanitized from the classified report.  (Maybe they did.)  They needed sanitized information to identify and correct issues associated with their particular voting equipment and software.    Under no circumstances did they need any of the other information in the report to perform their duties as elections officials.  Morbid curiosity does not establish need-to-know.

And it was in the information that could not and should not be sanitized and released that Winner’s alleged actions may have gravely damaged the national security.  If nothing else, Winner’s alleged unauthorized retrieval, reproduction, and delivery of that report to the journo-whores at The Intercept_  and its subsequent publication by them gave the Russian GRU not just insight but official confirmation of knowledge held by the IC.   The GRU now has a better idea of what the IC knows and doesn’t know about the GRU’s efforts to influence US elections, an effort that has been going on since at least the early 1950’s.   That makes our national counterintelligence efforts to safeguard the integrity of elections much more difficult.

ADDENDUM on 06-08-2017 at 19:25 PDTReality Winner Indictment

May 23, 2017

More About Obstruction of Justice

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 3:48 pm

SVRlogoSome members of Congress, former swamp dwellers in the federal government, and members of the ooze and skews media (we’ll refer to them collectively as the U.S. Knavery or just Knavery) clearly will do whatever they believe is necessary to remove President Donald J. Trump from office.

To that end, the Knavery has been asserting that President Trump’s campaign ‘colluded’ with Russia to change the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.   The term ‘collusion’ is vague, but if there is an impeachable offense somewhere in the ‘collusion’ they assert, we believe the Knavery must produce admissible and conclusive physical evidence of the instrumentalities of the offense.   Show us the ‘hacked’ voting machines.  Show us the altered paper ballots.   Show us evidence that vast numbers of state election officials were bribed to change vote tallies.  Show us the evidence.

Our feeling is that if the Knavery had evidence of the offense, it would have been produced by now.

Likely knowing their efforts would fail to find DNA evidence of anything resembling an impeachable offense as alleged, the Knavery decided to escalate its efforts.  It decided to employ its Ministry of Disinformation (the ooze and skews media) to convince the public that President Trump had obstructed justice.

Our May 18, 2017, post entitled Obstruction of Justice? provided a primer on the offenses comprising obstruction of justice relating to interference with legislative, executive, and judicial functions.

Here is a link to another CRS publication entitled Obstruction of Justice Statutes:  Legal Issues Concerning FBI Investigations, Specific Intent, and Executive Branch Personnel.  This CRS Legal Sidebar was published on May 19, 2017, and is relevant because the Knavery is asserting that President Trump must have obstructed justice if he discussed the Flynn investigation with former FBI Director James Comey.

Memo to the U.S. Knavery:  If you only have straws, grasp at them.

May 18, 2017

Obstruction of Justice?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 7:05 am

Green Congress Call for ImpeachmentOn Wednesday, May 17, 2017,  US Representative Al Green (TX-9) addressed the House and called for President Trump to be impeached.  Green alleges President Trump committed an impeachable offense, obstruction of justice.

Green was not the first nor will he be the last to allege obstruction of justice.

To help members of Congress better understand ‘obstruction of justice,’ the Congressional Research Service published a report entitled ‘Obstruction of Justice:  An Overview of Some Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities.’  The 89-page report was dated April 17, 2014.

May 17, 2017

Appointment of Special Counsel

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 4:20 pm

SVRlogoHere is the US Department of Justice’s formal announcement of the appointment of Robert Mueller to serve as “Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters.”

Here is a link to the formal order signed by Acting Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.  It succinctly defines Special Counsel Mueller’s authority and the scope of his duties.

Acting AG Rosenstein’s order refers to several sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).  Here are links to the applicable CFR sections.

28 CFR 600.4 defines the Special Counsel Jurisdiction.

28 CFR 600.5 defines and authorizes Staff.

28 CFR 600.6 defines Powers and Authority.

28 CFR 600.7 defines Conduct and accountability.

28 CFR 600.8 prescribes Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.

28 CFR 600.9 prescribes Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

28 CFR 600.10 is a No creation of rights disclaimer.

May 5, 2017

Nault Wrongful Death Lawsuit Complaint

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , , — Bill @ 9:45 am

DisingenuousAs reported in OpenCdA’s May 3, 2017, post entitled Be Strong and Take Courage …, family members of Reginald J. ‘Reggie’ Nault have filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit in Mr. Nault’s death.

OpenCdA has obtained a copy of the initial complaint for damages and demand for jury trial filed in Idaho’s First Judicial District Court on May 2, 2017, at 5:05 p.m.

In addition to identifying the plaintiffs and defendants specifically and individually by name and establishing the jurisdiction and venue of the Court, the complaint particularizes each specific allegation the plaintiffs believe they can prove at trial.

OpenCdA’s preceding posts concerning Mr. Nault’s death raised questions about the quality and timeliness of the Kootenai County Sheriff’s Office investigation and its unwillingness to release the investigative reports to the Nault family.  We also raised concerns about the conflict asserted by Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney Barry McHugh when the ‘conflict’ attorney, Boundary County Prosecutor Jack Douglas’s press release stated, “However, based on my review of this event and applicable Idaho law, I have determined that no criminal act can be shown to be a direct cause of Mr. Nault’s death.  Therefore, charges will not be filed against anyone by my office.”  [emphasis OpenCdA’s]

Paragraph 2.20 and in particular its subparagraphs 2.20.a through 2.20.i in the complaint allege circumstances which, if sufficient evidence exists to show probable cause, would warrant the filing of some criminal charges.   Paragraphs 3.2.z  through specifically cite Idaho statutes which plaintiffs believe were violated.

Even if we and our readers believe Mr. Douglas’s assessment of evidence and applicable law was appropriate when his office declined to file charges against anyone because no criminal act could be shown to be a direct cause of Mr. Nault’s death, the failure to explain why other possibly appropriate criminal charges were not filed certainly raises valid questions.

The public has a legitimate interest in examining the professional conduct of its elected officials.  The Sheriff and the Prosecuting Attorney are not exempt from that examination.

OpenCdA believes the evidence admitted in court in the wrongful death lawsuit brought by Reggie Nault’s family should contribute to the public’s assessment of the official performance of duties by Kootenai County Sheriff Benton Wolfinger and Kootenai County Prosecutor Barry McHugh.

Additionally, we believe that it will give the public the opportunity to assess the performance of the First Judicial District judge who ultimately hears the case.

To the extent that other elected officials not yet named in any complaint may have received some or all the results of the investigation while those same results were being withheld from the Nault family, we think those officials’ conduct and the conduct of the investigative information provider(s) are deserving of public scrutiny as well.

We hope that the public will pay close attention to the news coverage and reporting of this trial by local and regional newspapers and television stations.    We hope that the news media will carefully and thoroughly question and then timely, completely, and accurately report inconsistencies between the trial evidence and the public officials’ statements and characterizations of that evidence.

Finally, we hope that on his own initiative,  Idaho Attorney General Lawrence G. Wasden pays very, very close attention to the filings and evidence in this civil lawsuit.  His office has statutory jurisdiction as well as a duty and responsibility to investigate if the evidence presented in court reveals violations of state criminal law by county officers who hold elective office.   In this particular lawsuit, the county officers most directly involved who hold elective office would include Kootenai County Sheriff Benton Wolfinger, Prosecuting Attorney Barry McHugh, and Kootenai County Coroner Warren Keene.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2017 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved