Plaintiff, and thousands of other claimants, have asserted, and provided hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence from Inspector General offices, that prove that agencies and staff of the United States government were weaponized on orders of The White House and top California political figures, to operate reprisal, vendetta, revenge and payback operations in order to harm Plaintiff, and others, on an ongoing basis, in reprisal for reporting crimes and illicit schemes those parties were involved in.
Now comes the 118th CONGRESS, 1st Session under H. RES. 12 which Plaintiff now advises and which has been deployed for the purpose of Establishing a Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government as a select investigative subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary. IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES on January 9, 2023, the following was sent to the Committee on Rules. It Established a Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal government as a select investigative subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, in part based on Plaintiff’s team’s testimony and evidence and did resolve the following: (a) Establishment; Composition.-- (1) Establishment.--There is hereby established for the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress a select investigative subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary called the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government (hereinafter referred to as the ``select subcommittee''). (2) Composition.-- (A) The select subcommittee shall be composed of the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, together with not more than 13 other Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner appointed by the Speaker, of whom not more than 5 shall be appointed in consultation with the minority leader. The Speaker shall designate one member of the select subcommittee as its chair. Any vacancy in the select subcommittee shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. (B) Each member appointed to the select subcommittee shall be treated as though a member of the Committee on the Judiciary for purposes of the select subcommittee. (b) Investigative Functions and Authority.-- (1) Investigative functions.--The select subcommittee is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study and, not later than January 2, 2025, issue a final report to the House of its findings (and such interim reports as it may deem necessary) regarding-- (A) the expansive role of article II authority vested in the executive branch to collect information on or otherwise investigate citizens of the United States, including ongoing criminal investigations; (B) how executive branch agencies work with, obtain information from, and provide information to the private sector, non-profit entities, or other government agencies to facilitate action against American citizens, including the extent, if any, to which illegal or improper, unconstitutional, or unethical activities were engaged in by the executive branch or private sector against citizens of the United States; (C) how executive branch agencies collect, compile, analyze, use, or disseminate information about citizens of the United States, including any unconstitutional, illegal, or unethical activities committed against citizens of the United States; (D) the laws, programs, and activities of the executive branch as they relate to the collection of information on citizens of the United States and the sources and methods used for the collection of information on citizens of the United States; (E) any other issues related to the violation of the civil liberties of citizens of the United States; and (F) any other matter relating to information collected pursuant to the investigation conducted under this paragraph at any time during the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress. (2) Authority.-- (A) The select subcommittee may report to the House or any committee of the House from time to time the results of its investigations and studies, together with such detailed findings and legislative recommendations as it may deem advisable. (B) Any markup of legislation shall be held at the full Committee level consistent with clause 1(l) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (c) Procedure.-- (1) Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and the rules of the Committee on the Judiciary shall apply to the select subcommittee in the same manner as a subcommittee except as follows: (A) The chair of the select subcommittee may, after consultation with the ranking minority member, recognize-- (i) members of the select subcommittee to question a witness for periods longer than five minutes as though pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(B) of such rule XI; and (ii) staff of the select subcommittee to question a witness as though pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(C) of such rule XI. (B) The Committee on the Judiciary (or the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, if acting in accordance with clause 2(m)(3)(A)(i) of rule XI) may authorize and issue subpoenas to be returned at the select subcommittee. (C) With regard to the full scope of investigative authority under subsection (b)(1), the select subcommittee shall be authorized to receive information available to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, consistent with congressional reporting requirements for intelligence and intelligence-related activities, and any such information received shall be subject to the terms and conditions applicable under clause 11 of rule X. (2) The provisions of this resolution shall govern the proceedings of the select subcommittee in the event of any conflict with the rules of the House or of the Committee on the Judiciary. (d) Service.--Service on the select subcommittee shall not count against the limitations in clause 5(b)(2)(A) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (e) Successor.--The Committee on the Judiciary is the ``successor in interest'' to the select subcommittee for purposes of clause 8(c) of rule II of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (f) Sunset.--The select subcommittee shall cease to exist 30 days after filing the final report required under subsection (b). National News Coverage Exposes Problems With Government Agency Reprisals – An Overview By Conner Lee A vast number of agency abuse cases and lawsuits are now on public record in the Inspector General's offices and federal courts. It is an indisputable fact that some government agencies run "hit-jobs" on citizens on orders from certain corrupt politicians. These actions are felony violations of the law. Federal and State Agencies including SSA, FEC, DOE, HHS, VA, CIA, NSA, SEC, FBI, DOJ and many others, have been charged, and found guilty, in these crimes against citizens. In the Congressional investigation published by the United States Congress in review of the U.S. Department of Energy LGP/ATVM programs, it is clearly proven that the U.S. Department of Energy was used as a slush-fund by some DOE executives in order to pay off campaign financiers by attacking and sabotaging their competitors. The DOE Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant under contracts with the Department of Energy and the government-owned U.S. Enrichment Corp paid $5M whistle-blower awards to those whistle-blowers who were attacked, using government agency resources, for reporting a crime. Dept. of Energy Hanford URS has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by former employee Walter Tamosaitis for $4.1 million. The settlement in the whistle-blower case comes almost one year before the case was set for a jury trial in federal court in Richland and compensates Tamosaitis for attacks against him, by DOE officials, in retribution for reporting a crime. VA officials attacked hundreds of citizens who reported corruption, ie: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/18610-va-whistleblowers-facing-retribution As shown in this report: https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2018/08/new-report-confirms-whistleblower-retaliation-is-alive-and- well-at-department-of-veterans-affairs/ ...Agencies attack often and harshly. CIA and NSA executives have been widely shown to use spy tools to attack domestic citizens they don't like, ie: 3https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435011/NSA-employees-used-phone-tapping-tools-spy- girlfriends-cheating-husbands.html ...and hundreds of other news links that can be provided. Elon Musk and Tesla, as well as Eric Schmidt and Larry Page at Google, have been proven to use the CIA group: IN-Q-TEL, to run government sponsored/financed attacks on business competitors. In Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00777-RBW GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WERE CAUGHT BEINGUSED FOR ATTACKS AGAINST CITIZENS AND PUNISHED IN THE COURT AND THE MEDIA! The IRS, HUD, SSA, DOE and hordes of other government agencies have been caught and proven, IN COURT, to target and attack people for presumed political differences. Why should we assume that the Social Security Administration is not ALSO doing this too to harm citizens who speak out? The Lois Lerner IRS attacks took many years to resolve. In an unprecedented victorious conclusion to a four year-long legal battle against the IRS, the bureaucratic agency admitted in federal court that it wrongfully targeted citizens, during the Obama Administration, because of their political viewpoints and issued an apology to those people for doing so. In addition, the IRS is consenting to a court order that would prohibit it from ever engaging in this form of unconstitutional discrimination in the future. In a proposed Consent Order filed with the Court, the IRS has apologized for its treatment of U.S. citizens including organizations from 20 states that applied for 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) tax-exempt status with the IRS between 2009 and 2012 -- during the tax-exempt determinations process. Crucially, following years of denial by the IRS and blame-shifting by IRS officials, the agency now expressly admits that its treatment of our clients was wrong and a total violation of our Democracy.. As set forth in the proposed Order: “The IRS admits that its treatment of Plaintiffs during the tax-exempt determinations process, including screening their applications based on their names or policy positions, subjecting those applications to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding of some Plaintiffs’ information that TIGTA determined was unnecessary to the agency’s determination of their tax-exempt status, was wrong. For such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology.” Throughout litigation of this case, activists have remained committed to protecting the rights of the public who faced unlawful and discriminatory action by the IRS and other agencies. The objective from the very beginning has been to hold agencies accountable for corrupt practices. 4This Consent Order represents a historic victory for the public and sends the unequivocal message that a government agency’s targeting of citizens organizations, or any organization, on the basis of political viewpoints, will never be tolerated and that revenge will be swift and vast. The Order will put an end, once and for all, to the abhorrent practices utilized against citizens, as the agreement includes the IRS’s express acknowledgment of – and apology for – its wrongful treatment of the public. While this agreement is designed to prevent any such practices from occurring again, rest assured that all public interest lawyers will remain vigilant to ensure that the IRS, SSA, DOJ or SEC does not resort to such tactics in the future. Per detailed reports, in March of 2012 lawyers began being contacted by literally dozens of citizens and groups who were being harassed by the Obama IRS after submitting applications for tax-exempt status. Their tax-exempt applications were held up for years (over seven years in some cases), and they began receiving obtrusive and unconstitutional requests for donor and member information. That began a now more than five and a half year fight with the burgeoning bureaucracy at the IRS. Then on May 10, 2013, Lois Lerner, the then head of the IRS Tax Exempt Organizations Division, publicly implicated the IRS in one of the worst political targeting scandals of the century. This is an extraordinary victory against government agency abuse. It sends a powerful warning to the deep state bureaucracy that it will not be allowed to violate the Constitution in order to silence and shut down the whistle-blowers. In addition to the IRS’s admissions of and apology for its wrongful conduct, the Consent Order would specifically award Plaintiffs the following: - A declaration by the Court that it is wrong to apply the United States tax code to any tax-exempt applicant or entity based solely on such entity’s name, any lawful positions it espouses on any issues, or its associations or perceived associations with a particular political movement, position or viewpoint; - A declaration by the Court that any action or inaction taken by the IRS must be applied evenhandedly and not based solely on a tax-exempt applicant or entity’s name, political viewpoint, or associations or perceived associations with a particular political movement, position or viewpoint; and - A declaration by the Court that discrimination on the basis of political viewpoint in administering the United States tax code violates fundamental First Amendment rights. Disparate treatment of taxpayers based solely on the taxpayers’ names, any lawful positions the taxpayers espouse on any issues, or the taxpayers’ associations or perceived associations with a particular political movement, position or viewpoint is unlawful. In the Order, the IRS has also agreed that (unless expressly required by law) certain actions against the Plaintiffs– i.e. the sharing, dissemination, or other use of information unnecessarily obtained by the IRS during the determinations process (such as donor names, the names of volunteers, political affiliations of an organization’s officers, etc.) – would be unlawful. In addition, the IRS promises not to take any retaliatory action against our clients for exposing the targeting scheme. 5Finally, and of crucial significance, the IRS admits it targeted persons and groups based on their viewpoints (i.e., “policy positions”) and that such viewpoint discrimination violates fundamental First Amendment rights. This is the first time the IRS has admitted that its targeting scheme was not just “inappropriate” – as TIGTA found – but, as alleged, blatantly unconstitutional. To ensure consistency and uniformity within the agency’s operations going forward, the IRS is required, pursuant to the Order, to inform all employees within the Exempt Organizations Division, as well as the Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners within other divisions, of the Order’s terms. This Order not only validates allegations about their treatment at the hands of the corrupt Obama-era IRS but also provides important assurances to the American public that the agency understands its obligation to refrain from further such discriminatory conduct. As Attorney General Sessions acknowledged in this regard, “[t]here is no excuse for [the IRS’s] conduct,” as it is “without question” that the First Amendment prohibits the conduct that occurred here, i.e., subjecting American citizens to disparate treatment “based solely on their viewpoint or ideology.” Sessions further confirmed his Department’s commitment to ensuring that the “abuse of power” in which the IRS engaged here “will not be tolerated.” It is impossible to overstate the importance of this victory. This marks a years-long fight for justice in defense of the constitutional rights of the public. This is an extraordinary victory against abuse of power and corruption. It sends a powerful warning to the deep state bureaucracy that it will not be allowed to violate the Constitution and manipulate the IRS, SSA and other agencies in order to silence and shut down those who speak out about political corruption crimes. In the wake of Wisconsin Watchdog’s investigation into SSA staff allegations of incompetence, misconduct, and retaliation in Social Security disability appeals offices, several employees have taken their complaints to a Senate committee led by Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson. An official with knowledge of the complaints said the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by the Oshkosh Republican, has received emails and other contacts from “certain people” inside the Social Security Administration’s Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. The initial complaints came from an employee inside the Milwaukee office following Wisconsin Watchdog’s opening investigative report that found some claimants waiting more than 1,000 days for an appeals decision on their disability benefits claim. Following Wednesday’s story of a whistleblower in the Madison ODAR office, the committee has received more specific complaints about retaliation against employees, the source said. Committee staff members sent the latest Watchdog piece to SSA administrators hoping they will “cooperate,” the source said. To date, the agency has been less than cooperative. 6“This is an ongoing process, and they are not always as forthcoming as we’d like them to be,” the source said. “Hopefully with your continued reporting, this is an issue they can’t duck.” A Senate committee member said officials there are working with the Office of Special Counsel on “multiple whistleblower retaliation claims.” The committee continues to request information from the SSA. The whistleblower in the Madison office claims management retaliated against her after she was called to testify in a misconduct case. The incident involved “inappropriate behavior” by an administrative law judge, she said. “They are so corrupt. It’s absolutely horrible,” said the woman, a lead case technician in the Madison Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. She spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing more retribution from her supervisors. While she said recounting her particular experiences will more than likely betray her identity anyway, the ODAR case worker insisted she has had enough. “I’m at point where they don’t care about me, I don’t see why I’m protecting them. This is my last resort,” she said. “I want to do my work without fear of retaliation.” She said she has contacted the Senate committee. “I forwarded my information to them and I got an email back from them. They said people are coming out of the woodwork with their complaints (about ODAR) following your story,” the whistle-blower said. Ronald Klym, a long-time senior legal assistant in the Milwaukee ODAR office, alleges he has been retaliated against by supervisors for going public with his charges of incompetence and misconduct in the agency. The federal employee, who has worked for SSA for 16 years, provided Wisconsin Watchdog with documents showing extremely long wait times for claimants appealing their denied applications for benefits. Doug Nguyen, SSA regional spokesman, in a previous story said the agency acknowledges that Milwaukee ODAR has a “high average processing time for disability appeal hearings, and we are working to address the issue.” Beyond the delays is what Klym calls the “shell game,” the wholesale transferring of cases to other parts of the country by administrators to make the Milwaukee office’s numbers look better than they are. The Madison office whistle-blower confirmed Klym’s allegations, saying at one point she saw 2,000 cases from the Milwaukee office handed off to the Oak Brook operation. 7There are over 10,000 SSA disability manipulation charges against SSA executives and staff. MORE PROOF: https://archive.fo/V4KSh https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/confirmed-john-fry-the-irs-analyst-who-leaked-michael- cohens-tax-returns-is-a-far-left-trump-basher-who-supports-beto-orourke/ New Whistleblower Protection Office Is Under Investigation for Retaliating Against Whistleblowers The Veterans Affairs Department’s watchdog is investigating a new office created by President Trump early in his administration that was designed to protect whistleblowers from reprisal but is now facing allegations of aiding retaliation against them. VA’s Office of Inspector General is leading the investigation from its new Office of Special Reviews, which the IG created to conduct “prompt reviews of significant events” and examine allegations of senior VA employee misconduct, an IG spokesman said. The new IG office is looking into activities at the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection as part of an ongoing review of the implementation of the 2017 law that created OAWP. Trump created OAWP by executive order in 2017 and later codified it when he signed the 2017 VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act into law. The office was mostly celebrated, with advocates hopeful that the focus on the rights and protections for whistleblowers would reverse a culture infamous for intimidation and reprisal. That optimism has largely soured, however, leading to hotline tips to the inspector general and bipartisan scrutiny from Congress. “There has been considerable interest by some members of Congress and other stakeholders in this effort,” said Mike Nacincik, the IG spokesman, who said he could not comment further on ongoing work. President Trump has frequently touted the law as one of his signature legislative achievements, focusing primarily on the reforms it made to expedite the disciplinary process for VA employees. But Trump also spoke of the promises on which skeptics now say the law has failed to deliver: “This bill protects whistleblowers who do the right thing,” Trump said. “We want to reward, cherish, and promote the many dedicated employees at the VA.” Government Executive spoke to several VA employees who expressed frustration or anger toward OAWP, three of whom have already been interviewed by IG investigators. They described feeling betrayed or neglected by an office they believed was going to help them but ended up doing the 8opposite. They said they have shared information with the investigators, including documentation of alleged reprisal. Curt Cashour, a VA spokesman, said the department “welcomes the inspector general’s oversight,” but defended it against most allegations. He acknowledged that the office experienced some growing pains, but said it has “evolved over time, refining and improving its policies and practices along the way.” What Whistleblowers Are Telling Investigators “It’s a crooked system where literally the fox is guarding the hen house,” said Jay DeNofrio. DeNofrio, an administrative officer at a VA facility in Altoona, Pa., had prior experience as a whistleblower before OAWP was created—years ago, he disclosed information about a doctor he said was losing mental capacity and putting veterans at risk—so he thought he understood the investigative process that takes place after employees make disclosures to investigators. OAWP, however, was the first body he’d ever worked with that coordinated with VA headquarters to find blemishes on his own record after he reported wrongdoing, he said. Investigators questioned his coworkers, telling them DeNofrio does not “walk on water” just because he is a protected whistleblower and encouraged them to immediately report “any instances of poor behavior,” according to transcripts of those conversations obtained through records requests and provided to Government Executive. DeNofrio said IG investigators took the allegations against OAWP seriously and called their review “high profile” and “high priority.” Dan Martin, a chief engineer at VA’s Northern Indiana Health Care System, said OAWP failed to protect him when his case came before it. Martin said in 2016 he discovered contracting violations related to a non-functioning water filtration system, but when he reported the problems to superiors he was stripped of his responsibilities and sent to work in an office without heat or air conditioning. The VA inspector general launched an investigation into the contracting practices, and asked Martin to surreptitiously record conversations with procurement officers, Martin said. It was not until OAWP got involved in the case that Martin’s supervisors became aware of that cooperation. When OAWP allegedly shared that information with leadership at his facility, Martin said his supervisors “had no choice but to shut me down” so he could no longer send recordings about the supervisors’ “very inappropriate relationships with contractors” to investigators in the OIG. “OAWP set me up,” said Martin, who initially felt far more optimistic about OAWP’s capacity to help his cause. “They incentivized [my facility] to go after me.” Martin is also fighting his case through the Merit Systems Protection Board. During that process, VA’s Office of General Counsel came to Martin and his attorneys asking for certain information about the case. The attorneys representing Martin told the lawyers in the Office of General Counsel they would only hand the information over during discovery. Shortly after rejecting the request, Martin said, OAWP followed up to ask for the same information. “Some of them are so crooked they swallow nails and spit up corkscrews,” Martin said. 9‘They Turned on Whistleblowers’ The alleged collaboration between the Office of General Counsel and OAWP has troubled observers. Tom Devine, legal director at the Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower advocacy group, said his initial excitement about OAWP has been dampened by “structural developments,” including what he called veto power the department's general counsel has over the whistleblower protection office. This would appear to be in violation of the 2017 law that permanently authorized OAWP, which prohibits the office from existing “as an element of the Office of General Counsel” and its leadership from reporting to OGC. Cashour said it was false to suggest that the Office of General Counsel exercises veto power over whistleblower claims, but acknowledged OAWP and OGC do coordinate. “OAWP has a collaborative working relationship with OGC, but OAWP retains final decision making authority on all OAWP matters,” Cashour said. Rebecca Jones, policy counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, said the office can likely not completely fix its issues while it remains an “internal clearinghouse” for whistleblowers rather than a truly independent office. Jones praised the IG for investigating the alleged retaliation. “I wish it hadn’t come to this,” she said. Devine praised some of OAWP’s early accomplishments, such as delaying VA’s disciplinary decisions that involved alleged reprisal and the hiring of high-profile whistleblower Brandon Coleman as a liaison between whistleblowers and the office. Coleman even established a mentoring program to help assist victims of retaliation, but it has since been shut down. “They didn’t have the teeth to enforce their good deeds,” said Devine, who has significantly curbed his cooperation with OAWP. “They turned on whistleblowers.” ‘You Don’t Want to Come Forward’ A third VA employee, who requested anonymity to protect his ongoing cases, recently informed IG investigators about what he alleged is OAWP’s betrayal of trust and subsequent inactivity. The employee made an initial whistleblower disclosure in early 2017 that was bounced around to several offices within VA. He subsequently was removed from his position as a technician and is now relegated to “brain-dead work,” he said. He contacted OAWP about the alleged reprisal later that year. During his interactions with the whistleblower office, he turned over sensitive information about his hospital that a colleague had provided—the OAWP investigator was the only individual with whom he shared the information. Days later, the employee said, the colleague was “chewed out” by leaders at the facility for sharing the information. To the employee, it felt like OAWP had betrayed him, he told Government Executive. 10The employee said he then experienced 21 months of “radio silence.” He recently spoke with OIG about his negative experiences with OAWP. A few days later, the employee said he unexpectedly heard from the OAWP investigators. He said he is now “very, very cautious” in his interactions with OAWP. “It scares you,” he said. “You don’t want to come forward. People are afraid.” Tonya Van, formerly a doctor a VA facility in San Antonio, also became a whistleblower after disclosing to a supervisor that a doctor at her facility was giving incorrect diagnoses. She filed a complaint with OAWP after she alleged her supervisor made her work life so miserable she was forced to resign. But she quickly became disenchanted with the office due to lack of communication, she said. She tried to follow up with OAWP but never heard back. The office eventually closed out her case, though it later contacted her about opening a second investigation. She said she has “no idea” what the results of either investigation were. Van alleged that her supervisors’ reprisal against her took the form of accusations of using foul language in the workplace. Martin, the Northern Indiana employee, said he faced an investigation for similar accusations. Changes and Cautious Optimism Cashour, the VA spokesman, said OAWP does not provide “detailed information related to the specific outcome of an investigation to employees” due to privacy concerns. He added that the office has revised its policies to disclose more information to claimants, including when an investigation has been closed and if claims of retaliation were substantiated. Multiple VA employees criticized this practice, calling it counterintuitive that VA would claim privacy concerns over investigations that the employees themselves requested. Cashour said OAWP has changed other practices after a draft of a June 2018 Government Accountability Office report faulted the office for its investigatory practices, including allowing officials accused of retaliation to be directly involved in the inquiries in which they are named. VA told GAO it would not end its practice of “referring cases of misconduct back to facilities and program offices where the misconduct occurred.” However, Cashour said OAWP now informs employees upfront when their matters will be referred elsewhere for review. To protect whistleblowers, he said, OAWP now allows employees “to either opt-out of the disclosure or withhold the release of their name.” In August 2018, however, when Van had an in-person interview with OAWP investigators, she and her attorney were still alleging retaliation by OAWP. While asking about Van’s allegations, an OAWP investigator told Van she could be penalized for violating a prior settlement with VA by asking a former colleague to write a recommendation. Her attorney said Deirdre Weiss, the OAWP employee, was ignoring the intent of that prior agreement. “The bottom line is that, as accountability investigators, where we see possible wrongdoing we cannot look the other way just because somebody is a complainant, okay,” said Weiss, according to a transcript of the proceedings. 11Last year, before his office formally launched an official investigation into the practices of OAWP, VA Inspector General Michael Missal became part of a public spat with then acting Secretary Peter O’Rourke over documents housed within the office. The IG requested access to information on the cases filed with OAWP, but O’Rourke refused to comply. They aired their grievances through a series of public letters, which included O’Rourke harshly reminding Missal that the IG served as the secretary’s subordinate. Congress ultimately intervened by emphasizing in a spending bill that the IG had the right to any and all documents it requested. O’Rourke had previously served as the first head of OAWP, a period in which many of the complaints against the office originated. Current VA Secretary Robert Wilkie reportedly asked O’Rourke to resign last year after determining he was doing little work as a senior advisor. OAWP is still a small office, employing just 96 workers—28 of whom are investigators—for a workforce of 380,000. Its employees receive standardized training in investigative techniques, both internally and from outside experts such as those at the Homeland Security Department and the Office of Special Counsel. The office is now headed by Tammy Bonzanto, who previously served as an investigator on the House Veterans Affairs Committee. Her tenure has received mixed reviews. DeNofrio, for example, is still concerned by what he calls her lack of transparency. Other observers are cautiously optimistic that her leadership could get the office back to its original mission. “We’re confident they have good-faith leadership now,” said GAP’s Devine. “The question is how much professional freedom she’ll have.” ------------------------------------- Nearly 100,000 Pentagon whistleblower complaints have been silenced – By Lee Camp I don’t know if I’d have the nerve to be a whistleblower. I’d like to think I would. We all like to think we would, just like we all like to think we could catch the game-winning touchdown or fold a fitted sheet without cursing But to blow the whistle on a huge organization with a lot of power, likely drawing that power to come crashing down on your head – that takes some serious spine-age. Now, imagine the organization you’re calling out is arguably the largest, most powerful, most secretive and most violent organization on planet Earth. I’m speaking, of course, of the US Department of Defense. Pentagon books so wrong on every level it’s impossible to detect fraud – Matt Taibbi Pentagon books so wrong on every level it’s impossible to detect fraud – Matt Taibbi 12Yet thousands, even tens of thousands, of people have taken that step over the past five years. (More on this in a moment.) All the while our organized human murder machine continues its work around the world. Every day. Every hour. Never a moment of rest. Never pausing to clip their toenails or scratch their ass. Bombs dropped. Buildings blown up. People killed or imprisoned. No end in sight. By the way, that’s the term I like to use instead of “military” – Organized Human Murder Machine. It has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? “Mili-tary” sounds too boring, too banal. Sounds like a super-lame couple you met at a party. “Yeah, Millie and Terry over there are accountants. If I have to hear one more joke about capital gains taxes, I’m gonna kill myself.” But that’s not what the military is. The military is a gigantic organized human murder machine, and even if you “support” every action our military has ever taken, you can still acknowledge it’s an organized human murder machine. (You would just bizarrely argue that all the murder has been just and sound and pure.) Eleven months ago I covered $21 trillion of unaccounted-for adjustments at the Pentagon over the past 20 years. Don’t try to think about the number $21 trillion because you’ll pass out and hit your head on the desk. If your salary is $40,000 a year, in order to earn $21 trillion, it would take you 525 million years. (At which point you can’t even enjoy the new jet ski you just bought with all your money because you’re almost certainly a brain in a jar … though a nice embroidered jar that only the rich brains can afford.) Also on rt.com The Pentagon failed its audit amid a $21 trillion scandal (yes, trillion) - Lee Camp Over the past year there has been a little more coverage of the utterly preposterous amount of money unaccounted for at our human murder machine. The Nation magazine, Forbes and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez all covered it. Then the white blood cells of the military-industrial complex kicked into action in order to destroy the “infection.” The New York Times and Vox both claimed the $21 trillion is merely the result of large-scale misdocumentation and therefore doesn’t matter at all. Of course, the idea that tens of TRILLIONS of dollars of unaccountable adjustments don’t matter and couldn’t mask any fraud, abuse or corruption is an assertion that makes Charlie Sheen’s statement that he runs on tiger blood seem downright levelheaded. Probably the best article to date on the $21 trillion was written a few weeks ago by Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone. Point is, even though most of the mainstream media won’t get near this subject (or worse yet—actively attack those who do), the word is getting out: There is a giant sucking sound in the center of the Pentagon, and whatever’s down there feeds on trillions of secretive dollars, then sh*ts out incalculable death and destruction. (It’s the Death Star if officials at the Death Star spent $10,000 on a toilet seat.) 13A month ago the Government Accountability Office came out with a report showing the total number of whistleblower complaints over the past five years at the Department of Defense. It’s nearly 100,000. Here’s the only part of the report that references that number: “The Department of Defense Inspector General identified 8 substantiated violations of whistleblower confidentiality between fiscal years 2013 and 2018, representing approximately .01 percent of the 95,613 contacts handled by the Inspector General during that time…” We are being lied into war again – Lee Camp We are being lied into war again – Lee Camp 95,613 whistleblower complaints over five years. Sadly, the Government Accountability Office was trying to brag in that sentence. They were proudly stating, “We only breached the confidentiality of .01 percent of our 95,000 whistleblower complaints. Aren’t we heroes?!” It’s kind of like saying, “Of the 10,000 dolphins I’ve killed, not a single one has accidentally been a human.” The sane response is, “Well, I’m glad to hear that, but did you say you killed 10,000 dolphins?” To try to get the 95,000 number to make a little more sense, that averages out to a whistleblower every six minutes of every weekday for five straight years. (That waiting room must be truly nuts. I bet all the good magazines were claimed years ago.) But maybe I’m looking at this all wrong. Perhaps the number 95,613 shouldn’t be all that shocking, and I need to roll my tongue back up and store it back within my mouth. When you have $21 trillion of unaccounted-for adjustments, it means a seizure-inducing amount of money, parts, pieces, bombs, missiles, manpower and devices are flying around with no accountability – likely creating loads of fraud, which would probably create loads of whistleblowers. Hence, maybe we all should have expected this number of whistleblowers rather than being shocked. For example, there’s the time in 2003 when the US flew $12 billion in cash to Iraq and promptly lost track of it. As the Guardian makes clear in this article, this was not an instance of hackers on a computer system stealing a bunch of ones and zeroes. This was giant pallets of cash money vanishing without a trace. In fact, it was 281 million $100 bills, weighing in at 363 tons. That’s not really the type of thing you can just smuggle away in your sweatshirt while humming “She’ll be comin’ ‘round the mountain.” Or here’s another example journalist David DeGraw highlights from the Government Accountability Report: “… according to a Department of Defense official, during an initial audit, the Army found 39 Blackhawk helicopters that had not been recorded in the property system. [$819 million in value] Similarly, the Air Force identified 478 buildings and structures at 12 installations that were not in the real property systems.” 14The Army lost and then found 39 helicopters. The Air Force lost and then found 478 buildings. How does one lose a goddamn building? Unless you just had a bad breakup with David Copperfield, there’s no explanation for losing a building. (Side note: It must suck divorcing David Copperfield. “Really, honey? You think you’re gonna take the house?? PAFOOMPF! What house?!”) Ya see, this madness stems from the fact that the Pentagon has a standard operating procedure of simply making up numbers to fill their books – which, for normal human beings, is termed “fraud.” But in the case of the Pentagon, it’s termed, “We get to make sh*t up because … ummm… national security.” Also on rt.com Cold War is good for business: US contractors rejoice at the new Red Scare Here’s more from a 2013 Reuters article: “Linda Woodford spent the last 15 years of her career inserting phony numbers in the Department of Defense’s accounts … but many mystery numbers remained. For those, Woodford and her colleagues were told by superiors to take “unsubstantiated change actions” – in other words, enter false numbers, commonly called “plugs,” to make the Navy’s totals match the Treasury’s.” Have no fear, patriotic Americans, this is not “lying to the American people, stealing their money, and using it for war,” this is just “unsubstantiated change actions.” Try that on your next tax return. Put in $10,000 marked “Unsubstantiated change actions.” I’m sure they’ll love that. So let’s sum this up, shall we? The Pentagon sucks up 55% of all the discretionary tax money we pay to our government (thanks to our bought-off Congress who receive more Christmas cards from weapons contractors than they do from relatives). Those who work at the Pentagon have no idea where or how the money is spent. They make up many of the numbers resulting in tens of trillions of dollars of unaccounted-for adjustments. They lose helicopters, buildings and, in a few instances, even nuclear warheads. There is an unimaginable amount of fraud and corruption at every level and literally thousands of whistleblowers have tried to come forward every single year – one every six minutes. When they do take that incredibly brave action, over 90% of the claims are dismissed without even being investigated. You would think, in this topsy-turvy world, if there were one organization we could trust with a trillion dollars a year of our taxpayer money, it would be the Department of Unauthorized Highly Secretive Mass Human Murder. ------------------------- https://www.army.mil/article/124325/whistleblower_reprisal_what_it_is_isnt http://www.dodhotline.dodig.mil/Programs/Whistleblower/pdfs/IOGuide/ GuideToInvestigatingMilitaryWhistleblowerReprisalAndRestrictionComplaints.pdf 15https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/foia/Investigation%20of%20GSA%20Whistleblower %20Reprisal%20Complaint%20June%202017.pdf https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-air-national-guard-whistleblower-retaliation- 20190423-story.html http://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2019/apr/16/european-parliament-backs-rules-to-protect- whistleblowers-1965117.html https://www.rollcall.com/news/pentagon-whistleblowers-often-face-retaliation-that-goes-unpunished https://www.law360.com/articles/1133035/9th-circ-affirms-ex-bio-rad-gc-s-8m-whistleblower-win https://retractionwatch.com/2018/07/30/how-institutions-gaslight-whistleblowers-and-what-can-be- done/ https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/05/corporate-whistleblowers-desperate-for-new- protections https://www.devex.com/news/the-high-price-of-being-a-un-whistleblower-92752 http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/670072/Whistleblowing/ OSC+Whistleblower+Regime+Updates+Civil+Cause+Of+Action+For+Whistleblower+Reprisals https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/middlechurch-home-whistleblower-speaks-1.4713482 https://www.smh.com.au/business/chilling-tale-of-origin-energy-whistleblower-20170124-gtxuhz.html https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/you-ruined-my-career-pay-me-10m-traumatised-agent- suing-the-afp-for-huge-sum/news-story/8c6e1c9a70745dc4418973d028db1323 https://www.federaltimes.com/federal-oversight/2017/10/23/fbi-managers-labeled-whistleblower-an- insider-threat-in-retaliation/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/09/22/va-culture-of-reprisals-against- whistleblowers-remains-strong-after-scandal/ https://www.stripes.com/news/feds-probing-reports-of-va-whistleblower-reprisals-1.287227 https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3006462/european-parliament-overwhelmingly- backs-rules-protect-whistle https://www.canberratimes.com.au/politics/federal/the-whistle-shaped-hole-in-our-laws-20190327- p5185l.html http://theconversation.com/troublemakers-and-traitors-its-no-fun-being-a-whistleblower-50755 https://leadership.ng/2019/01/19/fifa-whistleblower-killed-in-ghana/ http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/2018-the-year-of-the-whistleblower 16DOE corruption—appointed and elected officials should face prison time Marita Noon | An exhaustive review of 350+ pages of leaked emails regarding the Obama administration’s handling of the various green-energy loan and grant programs makes several things very clear: they lied, engaged in favoritism, and rushed application approvals to suit the political agenda of the White House. At the same time, worthy projects that went through a complete due diligence process were denied or ultimately withdrawn, as the lengthy approval process “taxed investors’ patience”—as was the case with Aptera Motors, which worked closely with the DOE for two years. Paul Wilbur, President and CEO at Aptera, didn’t think they were treated unfairly. He told me, “At the end of the day, we couldn’t get through the process.” But, he admits, he hasn’t read the emails. Aptera was trying to build a very efficient electric vehicle with an under $30K price point. Wilbur met with Secretary Chu who could see the value in the technology. But our research shows that value was not the deciding factor in which projects got funded and which ones didn’t. Wilbur reports that he didn’t donate to any candidate. He wanted to keep the whole process clean and do what was “good for America.” The report from the House Oversight Committee says Aptera first applied for an ATVM loan in December of 2008 and “shut down on December 2, 2011.” The report implies that Aptera was led on: “After numerous negotiations with DOE, in September 2011, Aptera received a conditional loan commitment of $150 million if the company was able to raise $80 million privately.” And: “The loans given to Fisker and Tesla gave Aptera hope that DOE would eventually act on their application. More importantly, since the DOE continued to engage with the company throughout the time period, management was convinced that DOE was interested and willing to provide financing for the company.” Aptera’s 100% US technology has since been sold to a Chinese company. Aptera was applying for an Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan (ATVM). Only five loans were given out through the program and all have political ramifications. Christine Lakatos, who has worked with me on the green-energy, crony-corruption reports I’ve written, has done thorough research on the topic. She has read each and every one of the 350+ pages of emails released on October 31 and has written a blog post specifically addressing the ATVM program and its hijinks. As she cites, Fisker and Tesla (which Romney referenced in the first debate), got loans in 2010 and then the Vehicle Production Group’s loan was the only ATVM loan closed in 2011; all have ties to Obama bundlers. The 17other two ATVM loans went to Ford and Nissan—both of which, according to the House report, “were heavily engaged in negotiations with the Administration over fuel economy standards for model years 2012-2016 at the time the DOE was considering their applications. Both companies eventually expressed publicly their support for these standards, which the Administration described as the ‘Historic Agreement.’” Armed with the sweeping knowledge of the House reports and subsequent hearings, evidence from DOE staffers (many of whom were appointed by Obama), Lakatos’ research, and personal experience, a different ATVM applicant has now taken its case to court citing “corruption and negligence.” On November 16, 2012, XP Technologies filed a lawsuit against the federal government concerning the DOE’s denial of XP Technology’s loan guarantee application. The complaint alleges: “criminal activities did take place by DOE staff and affiliates.” A November 23 press release announces that XP Technologies is now represented by Cause of Action, “a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that uses investigative, legal, and communication tools to educate the public on how government accountability and transparency protects taxpayer interests and economic activity.” According to the document filed on November 16, “Plaintiffs' backgrounds include extensive issued patents on seminal technologies in use world-wide, White House and Congressional commendations and an engineering team of highly experienced auto-makers. Plaintiff brought a vehicle design, which was proposed as the longest range, safest, lowest cost electric vehicle, to be built in America in order to deliver extensive American jobs nationwide. No other applicant, or award ‘winner’, has succeeded in meeting, or (is) intending to meet, that milestone. XP Technology developed a patented lightweight, low-cost, long-range, electric vehicle using air-expanded foam-skinned material for a portion of the polymer body and received numerous patents, acclaim and superior computer modeling metrics over any competing solution. XP presented a vast set of letters of support to DOE from pending customers. Major auto-industry facilities and engineers had joined forces to bring the vehicle to the defense, commercial and consumer market.” Over the weekend, we had an exclusive interview, on condition of anonymity, with a senior official at XP Technologies about the lawsuit and the experience. He reported: “Staff from within the DOE have provided evidence which is quite compelling.” As Aptera's Wilbur made clear, the individuals within the DOE were very thorough. One of the emails, in the 350+ pages, was from Secretary Chu himself in which he criticized staffers for taking a “principled stand,” which held up the approval process of projects the White House wanted advanced. Another indicated that the pressure to rush was coming from “above the agency.” Overall, the emails show that projects were rushed so that announcements could coincide with visits, speeches, and photo ops—as well as providing talking points for the president. Our XP source told us “We experienced, and have been provided evidence of, applicant submissions and reviews being modified in order to benefit some and disadvantage others, and the business connections between the different parties associated with the ones that benefited is quite extraordinary.” The leaked emails support this accusation, specifically regarding the “business 18connections.” In her post, Lakatos calls it “green fraternizing.” The emails show that certain applicants and decision makers went bike riding together, had coffee meetings, sleepovers, beer summits, parties, dinners, and fundraisers. While he didn’t provide us with a name, the XP official said, “We experienced a senior senator blockading our efforts and then providing favors to a competitor, which then benefited his family financially.” The discovery the lawsuit will provide will expose the “senior senator,” but our previous research shows that Senator Harry Reid’s actions seem to fit the XP official’s comment. XP Technologies believes that “DOE officials changed the first-come-first-served published rules and standards of the funding in order to take applicants in order of who they favored and who had purchased the most influence instead of the order in which they applied, as required.” Having extensively studied the DOE’s various loan programs, including the ATVM, Lakatos and I agree with our source’s startling conclusion: “Based on the evidence provided by investigators, and experienced directly by our team, it is hard to imagine that at least one or more elected, or?appointed, officials might not be seeing measures ranging from censure or even federal prison time.” Time, the lawsuit, and subsequent investigation will tell. While the House Oversight Committee has been digging deeply into the mismanagement and corruption of the green energy loans, the media has paid little attention. Other than our report, the October 31 release of the emails cited here received virtually no news reporting. Even the Fox News Channel ignored the story. The plight of promising companies like Aptera and XP Technologies would have gone unnoticed if not for the lawsuit. The legal complaint attracted attention. On November 16, the Heritage Foundation broke the XP story: “A lawsuit filed in federal court on Wednesday alleges mass favoritism in the Department of Energy’s decisions to award federal grants to major car companies to develop electric vehicles, according to a legal complaint obtained by Scribe.” On November 19, Lakatos, whose work is listed as “evidence” in the legal complaint, received a call from Fox News’ Gary Gastelu—who reported on the story on November 20. The next day, Fox News covered the lawsuit on America’s Newsroom. Even the Drudge Report picked up on the story. XP has a litigation website on which the company states: “The case has nothing to do with complaining about not getting the loans. It has everything to do with HOW the applicants didn't get the loans!” They are communicating with other applicants about participating in the lawsuit. The XP story and subsequent media coverage offers a lesson for others—especially industries who have been wronged by the Obama Administration’s practices (such as energy). The lawsuit may—or may not—send officials to federal prison, as our XP source suggests, but it could go a long way to winning in the court of public opinion. If you thought that Mossack Fonseca and the Panama Papers was "The Story": IT WAS ONLY THE BEGINNING AND THE BRIBES, STOCK MARKET RIGGING AND CORRUPTION ARE STILL INCREASING!!! 19In the USA; Mofo, Wilson Sonsini, Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, and other firms, do the same corruption today that Mossack Fonseca did when they got caught. THIS IS ABOUT THE U.S. SENATORS AND THEIR CRONY DARK MONEY POLITICAL BRIBES AND CRIMINAL KICK-BACKS, THE TECH OLIGARCHS WHO DEPLOYED THE BRIBES AND THE VICTIMS OF THESE CRIMES. - Google, Tesla, Facebook, Linkedin and their VC's (and deeply bribed Senators) ordered and operated hit-jobs on the public and their competitors, supported by the Obama White House and U.S. Dept. of Energy. The FBI raided their scheme and the investigations tracked all the way back to the Oval Office! - How Obama's U.S. Department of Energy Defrauded Americans Out Of Their Life Savings In A Massive Dark Money Crony Crime Cover-up - "DARK MONEY" IS THE WAY THAT CORRUPT POLITICAL CRIMINALS EXCHANGE COMPENSATION, BRIBES AND INFLUENCE WITHOUT THE FBI CATCHING THEM - For these politicians to say: "We are excluded from the law for these crimes because we changed the laws in order to exclude ourselves" is like the Mafia saying: "Killing people isn't illegal only if we do the killing". - This is about a group of tech oligarchs, and their corrupt Senators, who commit crimes in order to manipulate over a trillion tax dollars (YOUR MONEY) into their, and their friends pockets. - They create fake issues that they hype-up through their controlled media. They use media monopoly tricks to try to shut out any other viewpoints. They push pretend issues that they believe will get more tax money allocated to "issue solutions" that they, and their friends, happen to already own the monopolies for. - They are felons yet they control some of the offices of the agencies who are supposed to arrest them. Silicon Valley bought K Street and U.S. Senators, gave them more Dark Money than history has ever seen and then had giant tech-law firms bribe, hit-job and blockade any attempts to solve the problem. - Some of the largest bribes in American history were paid via billions of dollars of pre-IPO cleantech stock, insider trading, real estate, Google search engine rigging and shadow-banning, sex workers, revolving door jobs, nepotism, state-supported black-listing of competitors and under-the-table cash. Why are these Silicon Valley Oligarchs and their K-Street law firms and lobbyists immune from the law? https://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/article_c6836711-70ed-588c-b73f- 547d6d82cb62.html ====================== HOW SILICON VALLEY'S "SCALED" CRIME CARTEL WORKS: 20- A crime with hookers and a very big shark There are millions of sharks in the ocean but only "Jaws" was big enough to earn himself (The Shark) so many feature films about trying to kill him. It was simply because he was so big and so hungry. Judging by the endless sequels, Jaws seems pretty hard to kill. This is about the biggest sharks. They are from Silicon Valley. Google, Facebook, Amazon, Linkedin, Netflix, et al; exist because they operate under the criminal umbrella of the tech Cartel frat boys. These guys are addicted to sex, and they are also huge assholes, so they can't keep any partners around unless they pay them to be trophy wives or "beard" wives. Buying sex from Italian escorts, young girls and New York Rent Boys is really, really expensive. This drives them to do anything to suck up huge amounts of cash. These guys are also addicted to power, so they buy East and West Coast U.S. Senators, British Parliament members and partner with corrupt Russian oligarchs. Buying Senators is also really, really expensive. This also drives them to do anything to suck up huge amounts of cash. These guys need, and spend, massive amounts of cash. Being a tech oligarch is really, really expensive. They can't have the IRS cutting into their hooker-budgets. They spend massive amounts on big law firms to hide money in real estate, trusts, fake charities and in a huge array of off-shore spider holes. These guys can't afford to get caught so they hire In-Q-Tel, Gawker Media, Black Cube, Fusion-GPS, and a huge army of other attackers, to destroy anybody who questions their motives. Their Cartel exists because they own all of the main servers, banks, venture capital firms, tech law firms, K Street lobbyists and tech HR firms. They control their entire eco-system and black-list anybody that offends them. They own the internet and they delete anybody who steps in their circle. Nobody can operate outside of it. No start-up can compete with them without getting a hit-job put on it. Since the year 2000, together, they have put over a million smaller companies out of business. They exist because of "Scaling": the ability to use monopolized networks to reach everyone on Earth, have lower prices, and destroy all competition because they control all infrastructure. Scaling is all they talk about at their AngelGate "power lunches" in the back rooms of Restaurants on University Avenue in Palo Alto. The FBI can't stop them because they owned James Comey, the head of the FBI. 21The SEC, FEC and FTC can't stop them because they own the regulators at those agencies. They Obama White House could not stop them because most of the Obama Administration was staffed by, and directed by, the staff of Google, Amazon and Facebook, et al. The Silicon Valley tech Cartel makes the Mafia look like small potatoes. They are a criminal organization! If certain politicians are as 'impassioned to serve the public' as they say, then shouldn't they volunteer for office and allow the public to see all of their bank accounts? Of course they will never do that because many of them are getting "DARK MONEY" covert payola and they are in office only to serve criminal kick-back schemes. Politician's Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and 42 others, sent out letters, emails, meeting requests and pitches to solicit members of the public to join a cause. The top staff of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sent out the same pleas. They promised a "wonderful new opportunity for all" in the first market break for outsiders in 30 years. In meetings, on camera, they promised to give members of the public a fair shot at a group of new Department of Energy funds that Obama had put in place. They failed to mention one key fact: ALL OF THE TAXPAYER MONEY HAD ALREADY BEEN SECRETLY PROMISED ("Hard Wired" it is called) TO OBAMA'S, AND THE DOE BOSSES, FRIENDS, IN ADVANCE. That is a felony violation of the law. A crime which FBI Director James Comey, and his staff covered up and which DOE Boss Steven Chu and his staff actively implemented. Our team knows this, as fact, because they reported directly to Comey, Chu and their offices. It was not an 'accident', it was not an 'oversight', it was not 'an agency just overwhelmed with paper'. It was a precision controlled, coordinated organized crime effort designed to rape, both, the U.S. taxpayers and the non-crony applicants for these funds. The crime used the traditional bribes, crony payola contracts, revolving doors, sex worker payoffs and other political corruption but it mainly used a new tactic called "Dark Money'. Our team knows this because some of them were solicited to participate in these crimes and some of them had close personal relationships with the politicians who are now known to have operated these crimes. Some of our witnesses and insiders have been involved with the DOE since before 2000. They have 'seen it all'. Companies, their executives and their investors were induced by California and New York Senators, White House Staff and the top staff of the U.S. Department of Energy to invest many years of their lives, and tens of millions of dollars of their personal cash in a fake government program which only existed to pay off Obama's political financiers. 22American taxpayers were lied to and ruined by the U.S Department of Energy and their damages are increasing monthly. The DOE never apologized, offered fixes or provided anything other than Fusion- GPS kinds of attacks on those who asked for help or who reported the crimes. This scam happened in 2008. History has proven that the DOE funds, since then, were rigged. Congress, the news media and special investigations have proven that these crimes happened. Nothing has ever been done to help the victims (over 100 companies and over 1800 individuals) recover from their state-sponsored losses. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bought stock in initial public offerings (IPOs) from the very Cleantech companies that earned hefty returns (ie: Solyndra, Tesla, Abound, etc.) while she had access to insider information that would have been illegal for an average citizen to trade with – even though it’s perfectly legal for elected officials, CBS’s "60 Minutes" reported Sunday night. In a piece relying on data collected from the conservative Hoover Institution, "60 Minutes" revealed that elected officials like Pelosi are exempt from insider trading laws – regulations that carry hefty prison sentences and fines for any other citizen who trades stocks with private information on companies that can affect their stock price. In the case of elected officials – this secret information ranges from timely details on lucrative federal contracts to legislation that can cause companies’ stocks to rise and fall dramatically. Editor's Note: Repeal Obamacare? Vote Here Now How do they get away with it? Lawmakers have exempted themselves from the laws that govern every other citizen. Pelosi, D-Calif., and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs while having access to information directly relating to the companies involved. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies, began making its way through the House. “Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest the Pelosis purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of $44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House,” Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" reported. Kroft confronted Pelosi at a regular press conference after she declined an interview. Kroft: Madam Leader, I wanted to ask you why you and your husband back in March of 2008 accepted and participated in a very large IPO deal from Visa at a time there was major legislation affecting the credit card companies making its way through the —through the House. Nancy Pelosi: But — Kroft: And did you consider that to be a conflict of interest? 23Pelosi: The — y — I — I don't know what your point is of your question. Is there some point that you want to make with that? Kroft: Well, I — I — I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's all right for a speaker to accept a very preferential, favorable stock deal? Pelosi: Well, we didn't. Kroft: You participated in the IPO. And at the time you were speaker of the House. You don't think it was a conflict of interest or had the appearance-- Pelosi: No, it was not — Kroft: — of a conflict of interest? Pelosi: —it doesn't — it only has appearance if you decide that you're going to have — elaborate on a false premise. But it — it — it's not true and that's that. Kroft: I don't understand what part's not true. Pelosi: Yes sir. That — that I would act upon an investment. “There are all sorts of forms of honest grafts that congressmen engage in that allow them to become very, very wealthy. So it's not illegal, but I think it's highly unethical, I think it's highly offensive, and wrong,” he told Kroft. “… Insider trading on the stock market. If you are a member of Congress, those laws are deemed not to apply,” Schweizer added. “The fact is, if you sit on a healthcare committee and you know that Medicare, for example, is — is considering not reimbursing for a certain drug that's market moving information. And if you can trade stock on — off of that information and do so legally, that's a great profit making opportunity. And that sort of behavior goes on.” Pelosi’s office issued a statement Sunday saying, “It is very troubling that ‘60 Minutes’ would base their reporting off of an already-discredited conservative author who has made a career out of attacking Democrats.” Schweizer’s books include “Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” and “Architects of Ruin,” according to Schweizer’s page on the Hoover Institution website. What happened when the victims of these crimes reported the incidents to authorities? The Obama Administration ordered and operated attacks on the victims. Those attacks included the following reprisal, retribution and revenge efforts:' - DOE solicited the victims with false promises and caused them to expend millions of dollars and years of their time for projects which DOE had covertly promised to their friends and were using the victims as a “smokescreen” to cover their illegal DOE slush-fund for the victims competitors and personal enemies. 24- Social Security, SSI, SDI, Disability and other earned benefits were stone-walled. Applications were “lost”. Files in the application process “disappeared”. Lois Lerner hard drive “incidents” took place in order to seek to hide information and run cover-ups. - DOE’s Jonathan Silver, Lachlan Seward and Steven Chu contacted members of the National Venture Capital association (NVCA) and created national “black-lists” to blockade Victims from ever receiving investor funding. This was also confirmed in a widely published disclosure by Tesla Motors Daryl Siry and in published testimony. FOIA requests were hidden, frozen, stone-walled, delayed, lied about and only partially responded to in order to seek to hide information and run cover-ups. - State and federal employees played an endless game of Catch-22 by arbitrarily determining that deadlines had passed that they, the government officials, had stonewalled and obfuscated applications for, in order to force these deadlines that they set, to appear to be missed. - Some Victims found themselves strangely poisoned, not unlike the Alexander Litvenko case. Heavy metals and toxic materials were found right after their work with the Department of Energy weapons and energy facilities. Many wonder if these “targets” were intentionally exposed to toxins in retribution for their testimony. The federal MSDS documents clearly show that a number of these people were exposed to deadly compounds and radiations, via DOE, without being provided with proper HazMat suits which DOE officials knew were required. - Victims employers were called, and faxed, and ordered to fire Victims from their places of employment, in the middle of the day, with no notice, as a retribution tactic. - On orders from Obama White House officials, DNC-financed Google, YouTube, Gawker Media and Gizmodo Media produced attack articles and defamation videos and locked them on the internet on the top line, of the front page of all Google searches for a decade in front of 7.5 billion people, around the world, at a cost of over $40 million dollars in server farms, production costs and internet rigging. The forensic data acquired from this attack proved that Google rigs attacks against individuals on the internet and that all of Google’s “impressions” are manually controlled by Google’s executives who are also the main financiers and policy directors of the Obama Administration. This data was provided to the European Union for it’s ongoing prosecution of Google’s political manipulation of public perceptions. - Victims HR and employment records, on recruiting and hiring databases, were embedded with negative keywords in order to prevent them from gaining future employment. - Our associates: Gary D. Conley, Seth Rich, Rajeev Motwani and over 30 other whistle-blowers in this matter, turned up dead under strange circumstances. They are not alone in a series of bizarre deaths related to the DOE investiagtions. - Disability and VA complaint hearings and benefits were frozen, delayed, denied or subjected to lost records and "missing hard drives" as in the Lois Lerner case. 25- Paypal and other on-line payments for on-line sales were delayed, hidden, or re-directed in order to terminate income potential for Victims who competed with DOE interests and holdings. - DNS redirection, website spoofing which sent Victims websites to dead ends and other Internet activity manipulations were conducted. All commercial storefronts and on-line sales attempts by Victims, had their sites hidden, or search engine de-linked by an massively resourced facility in order to terminate revenue potentials for those victims. Over 50,000 trolls, shills, botnets and synth-blog deployments were deployed to place defamatory statements and disinformation about victims in front of 7.5 billion people around the world on the internet in order to seek to damage their federal testimony credibility by a massively resourced facility. - Campaign finance dirty tricks contractors IN-Q-Tel, Think Progress, Black Cube, Podesta Group, Stratfor, Fusion GPS, IN-Q-Tel, Media Matters, Gawker Media, Gizmodo Media, Syd Blumenthal, etc., were hired by DOE Executives and their campaign financiers to attack Victims who competed with DOE executives stocks and personal assets. - Covert DOE partner: Google, transfered large sums of cash to dirty tricks contractors and then manually locked the media portion of the attacks into the top lines of the top pages of all Google searches globally, for years, with hidden embedded codes in the links and web-pages which multiplied the attacks on Victims by many magnitudes. Covert Cartel financier: Google, placed Google’s lawyer: Michelle Lee, in charge of the U.S. Patent Office and she, in turn, stacked all of the U.S. Patent Office IPR and ALICE review boards and offices with Google-supporting employees in order to rig the U.S. Patent Office to protect Google from being prosecuted for the vast patent thefts that Google engages in. Google has hundreds of patent lawsuits for technology theft and a number of those lawsuits refer to Google’s operations as “Racketeering”, “Monopolistic Cartel” and “Government Coup-like” behaviors. Thousands of articles and investigations detail the fact that Google, “essentially” ran the Obama White House and provided over 80% of the key White House staff. A conflict-of-interest unlike any in American history. Google’s investors personally told Applicant they would “kill him”. Google and the Obama Administration were “the same entity”. Applicant testified in the review that got Michelle Lee terminated and uncovered a tactical political and social warfare group inside Google who were financed by Federal and State funds. - Honeytraps and moles were employed by the attackers. In this tactic, people who covertly worked for the attackers were employed to approach the “target” in order to spy on and misdirect the subject. - Mortgage and rental applications had red flags added to them in databases to prevent the targets from getting homes or apartments. - McCarthy-Era "Black-lists" were created and employed against Victims who competed with DOE executives and their campaign financiers to prevent them from funding and future employment. - Targets were very carefully placed in a position of not being able to get jobs, unemployment benefits, disability benefits or acquire any possible sources of income. The retribution tactics were audacious, overt..and quite illegal. 26======================================== How does DOE Dark Money work? Let's take a look: In the politics of the United States, dark money is funds given to nonprofit organizations—and include 501(c)(4)(social welfare) 501(c)(5) (unions) and 501(c)(6) (trade association) groups—that can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals, and unions, and spend funds to influence elections, but are not required to disclose their donors. Dark money first entered politics with Buckley v. Valeo (1976) when the United States Supreme Court laid out Eight Magic Words that define the difference between electioneering and issue advocacy. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, "spending by organizations that do not disclose their donors has increased from less than $5.2 million in 2006 to well over $300 million in the 2012 presidential cycle and more than $174 million in the 2014 midterms." The New York Times editorial board has opined that the 2014 midterm elections were influenced by "the greatest wave of secret, special-interest money ever raised in a congressional election." The term was first used by the Sunlight Foundation to describe undisclosed funds that were used during the United States 2010 mid-term election. Its practical effect has been described by Donald Trump as Congress "being under the magical spell of the donors." In some elections, dark money groups have surpassed traditional political action committees (PAC) and "super PACs" (independent-expenditure-only committees) in the volume of spending. In 2014, the group Freedom Partners was identified as the "poster child" for the rise of dark money. In 2012, Freedom Partners had the ninth-highest revenues among all U.S. trade associations which filed tax returns that year, more than "established heavyweights" such as the American Petroleum Institute, PhRMA, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Freedom Partners largely acted as a conduit for campaign spending; of the $238 million it spent in 2012, 99 percent went to other groups, and Freedom Partners itself did not have any employees. This was a major distinction between other high-revenue trade associations, which typically have many employees and devote only about 6 percent of spending to grants to outside groups. The rise of dark money groups was aided by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2008) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010). In Citizens United, the Court ruled (by a 5–4 vote) that corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates. 2010 election cycle According to the Center for Responsive Politics, dark money (which it defined as funds from outside groups that did not publicly disclose donors, plus groups that received a substantial portion of their contributions from such nondisclosing groups) accounted for nearly 44% of outside spending in the 2010 election cycle. 27In the 2012 election cycle, more than $308 million in dark money was spent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. An estimated 86 percent was spent by conservative groups, 11 percent by liberal groups and 3 percent by other groups. The three dark money groups which spent the largest sums were Karl Rove's American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS ($71 million), the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity ($36 million) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($35 million), all conservative groups. Aside from a complex, and still highly covert network created by The Clinton Foundation, Media Matters and The Podesta Group, the three liberal groups with the largest dark-money expenditures were the League of Conservation Voters ($11 million), Patriot Majority USA, a group focusing on public schools and infrastructure ($7 million), and Planned Parenthood (almost $7 million). The 2014 election cycle saw the largest amount of dark money ever spent in a congressional election; the New York Timeseditorial board described 2014 "the greatest wave of secret, special-interest money ever." On the eve of the election, Republican-leaning dark money groups dominated, with $94.6 million in expenditures, exceeding dark money expenditures by Democratic-leaning dark money groups ($28.4 million), and by expenditures that could not be classified ($1.9 million). Karl Rove's dark money group Crossroads GPS alone spent over $47 million in the 2014 election cycle. In the Senate elections, dark money spending was highly concentrated in a handful of targeted competitive states, and especially in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Kentucky, and North Carolina. In the eleven most competitive Senate races, $342 million was spent by non-party outside groups, significantly more than the $89 million spent by the political parties. In the 2014 Kentucky election, a key player was the "Kentucky Opportunity Coalition," a group supporting Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, whom the New York Times editorial board has described as "the most prominent advocate for unlimited secret campaign spending in Washington." The Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, a 501(c)(4) "social welfare" group, raised more than $21 million, while McConnell raised about $32 million and McConnell's opponent, Democratic candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes, raised about $19 million. According to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of data provided by advertising tracking firm Kantar Media/CMAG, the group ran more than 12,400 television advertisements. Every Kentucky Opportunity Coalition's television advertisements mentioned either McConnell or Grimes; overall, about 53 percent of the group's ads praised McConnell while the rest were attack ads against Grimes. The Kentucky Opportunity Coalition relied heavily on political consultants in Washington, D.C. and Virginia linked to Karl Rove's Crossroads groups, and received $390,000 in a grant from Crossroads GPS. Described as "mysterious," the group was listed by a Post Office box, and the only name formally associated with the group was political operative J. Scott Jennings, a deputy political director in the George W. Bush administration, a worker for McConnell's previous campaigns. Melanie Sloan of the watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said that the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition was "nothing more than a sham." In North Carolina, the pro-Tillis group "Carolina Rising" received nearly all (98.7%) of its funds from Crossroads GPS; the Center for Responsive Politics highlighted this as an example of how Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4) group, "evades limits on political activity through grants" to other 501(c)(4) groups.  In the 2014 cycle, Crossroads GPS also gave $5.25 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, $2 million to the American Future Fund, and $390,000 to the Kentucky Opportunity 28Coalition. In total, Crossroads GPS spent more than $13.6 million on grants to other groups, which it described as being for the purposes of "social welfare." In 2014, the Democratic Party-aligned dark money group Patriot Majority USA, a 501(c)(4), spent almost $13.7 million on "direct and indirect political campaign activities," airing 15,000 television ads in targeted Senate races. About half of the $30 raised by the group came from five anonymous donors. The group was led by Craig Varoga, "a staunch ally" of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. In Alaska, Mark Begich was "one of the few Democratic candidates to come close to receiving as much support from dark money as his Republican opponent." The pro-Begich Alaska Salmon PAC, funded entirely by the League of Conservation Voters and its Alaska affiliate, spent funds in support of Begich. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, by October 2015, $4.88 million in dark money had already been spent for the 2016 election cycle, "more than 10 times the $440,000 that was spent at this point during the 2012 cycle." The money was spent by six groups - five conservative groups (including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $3 million, and Americans for Prosperity, which spent $1.5 million) and one liberal group (Planned Parenthood, which spent just under $75,000).  According to Richard Skinner of the Sunlight Foundation, "the focus of early dark money being spent in the 2016 cycle" is on competitive U.S. Senate elections and some U.S. House of Representatives races. However, dark money also is playing a role in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries; by June 2015, at least four Republican presidential candidates were raising funds via 501(c)(4) organizations: Bobby Jindal's America Next, Rick Perry's Americans for Economic Freedom, John Kasich's Balanced Budget Forever, and Jeb Bush's Right to Rise. 501(c) "dark money" groups are distinct from super PACs.While both types of entity can raise and spend unlimited sums of money, super PACs "must disclose their donors," while 501(c) groups "must not have politics as their primary purpose but don't have to disclose who gives them money." However, a single individual or group can create both types of entity and combine their powers, making it difficult to trace the original source of funds. ProPublica explains: "Say some like- minded people form both a Super-PAC and a nonprofit 501(c)(4). Corporations and individuals could then donate as much as they want to the nonprofit, which isn't required to publicly disclose funders. The nonprofit could then donate as much as it wanted to the Super-PAC, which lists the nonprofit's donation but not the original contributors." In at least one high-profile case, a donor to a super PAC kept his name hidden by using an LLC formed for the purpose of hiding their personal name. One super PAC, that originally listed a $250,000 donation from an LLC that no one could find, led to a subsequent filing where the previously "secret donors" were revealed. During the 2016 election cycle, "dark money" contributions via shell LLCs became increasingly common. The Associated Press, Center for Public Integrity, and Sunlight Foundation all "flagged dozens of donations of anywhere from $50,000 to $1 million routed through non-disclosing LLCs to super PACs" backing various presidential candidates, including Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and Carly Fiorina. Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC chairman who is now with the Center for Competitive Politics, a group that opposes campaign-finance reform, argues that this practice is not problematic, writing that "it is possibly the making of a campaign contribution in the name of another," a violation of existing law. 29According to Kathy Kiely, managing editor of the Sunlight Foundation, "untraceable dark money is a preferred tactic of conservatives, while Democrats tend to use traceable super PACs." The first federal law requiring disclosure of campaign contributions, the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, was passed in 1910. By the late 1970s, virtually all states and the federal government required public disclosure of campaign contributions and information on political donors. Most states and the federal government also required public disclosure of information about donors and amounts spent on independent expenditures, that is, expenditures made independently of a candidate's campaign. In January 2010, at least 38 states and the federal government required disclosure for all or some independent expenditures or electioneering communications, for all sponsors. Yet despite disclosure rules, it is possible to spend money without voters knowing the identities of donors before the election.In federal elections, for example, political action committees have the option to choose to file reports on a "monthly" or "quarterly" basis. This allows funds raised by PACs in the final days of the election to be spent and votes cast before the report is due. In addition to PACs, non-profit groups ranging from Planned Parenthood to Crossroads may make expenditures in connection with political races. Since these non-profits are not political committees, as defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act, they have few reporting requirements beyond the amounts of their expenditures. They are not required by law to publicly disclose information on their donors. As a result, voters do not know who gave money to these groups. Reports have disclosed instances where non-profits were managed by close associates, former staff, or a candidate's family member, and this has led to concern that the candidates benefiting from their expenditures would be able to know who donated the funds to the non-profit group, but the public would not.  For example, in the 2012 election cycle, one organization, the National Organization for Marriage, or NOM, operated two non-profit arms that received millions in donations from just a few donors. It in turn funded several different PACs. While these PACs had to disclose that NOM contributed the funds, they were not required to disclose who gave money to NOM. On March 30, 2012 a U.S. District Court ruled that all groups that spend money on electioneering communications must report all donors that give more than $1,000. However, this ruling was overturned on appeal. Legislative and regulatory proposals and debate over dark moneyAccording to Columbia Law School's Richard Briffault, disclosure of campaign expenditures, contributions, and donors is intended to deter corruption. The Federal Elections Commission, which regulates federal elections, has been unable to control dark money. According to the Center for Public Integrity, FEC commissioners are voting on many fewer enforcement matters than in the past because of "an overtaxed staff and commissioner disagreement." The IRS (rather than the FEC) is responsible for oversight of 501(c)(4) groups. The IRS "found itself ill-prepared for the groundswell" of such groups taking and spending unlimited amounts of money for political purposes in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. The agency particularly "struggled to identify which organizations appeared to be spending more than the recommended 50 percent of their annual 30budgets on political activities—and even to define what 'political spending' was." When the IRS began looking at nonprofit spending, it was accused of improper targeting in a 2013 controversy. "With the FEC and IRS duly sidelined" advocates for disclosure turned to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); nine academics from universities across the U.S. filed petitioned the SEC in August 2011 for the agency to "develop rules to require public companies to disclose to shareholders the use of corporate resources for political activities." The petition received over a million comments in the following month, "a record amount for the SEC, with the overwhelming majority of voters asking for better disclosure." According to Lucian Bebchuk, a Harvard professor of law, economics, and finance who helped draft the petition, the request had drawn the support of "nearly a dozen senators and more than 40 members of the House." Under current SEC regulations, public corporations must file a Form 8-K report to publicly announce major events of interest to shareholders.  The Sunlight Foundation, a group which advocates for a comprehensive disclosure regime, has proposed that the 8-K rule should be updated to require that aggregate spending of $10,000 on political activities (such as monetary contributions, in-kind contributions, and membership dues or other payments to organizations that engage in political activities) should be disclosed and made publicly available via the 8-K system. In 2015, Republicans in Congress successfully pushed for a rider in a 2015 omnibus spending bill that bars the IRS from clarifying the social-welfare tax exemption to combat dark money "from advocacy groups that claim to be social welfare organizations rather than political committees." Other provisions in the 2015 bill bar the SEC from requiring corporations to disclose campaign spending to shareholders, and a ban application of the gift tax to nonprofit donors. The Obama administration opposed these provisions, but President Obama eventually acceded to them in December 2015, with the White House declining to comment. The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center said in a statement that the dark-money provision ensures "that the door to secret foreign dollars in U.S. elections remains wide open through secret contributions to these ostensibly 'nonpolitical' groups that run campaign ads without any disclosure of their donors." The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), chaired by former FEC chairman Bradley A. Smith, opposes legislation to require the disclosure of dark-money groups, saying: "Our view is that many people will be driven out of politics if they are forced to disclose their names and their personal information. The purpose of disclosure is to help people monitor the government, not for the government to monitor the people." The Center for Competitive Politics views "dark money" as a pejorative term, stating that the phrase "evokes an emotional, fearful reaction" and contending that "many of the statistics published on the topic aim to mislead rather than enlighten." The CCP maintains that dark money "comprises a very small percentage of total campaign spending," calculating the percent of money spent in federal elections by organizations that did not provide itemized disclosure of their donors as 4.3% in 2012 and 3.7% in 2014. The U.S. Department of Energy was complicit in the processing of Dark Money payola cycling to Obama's financiers as a 'hand-on' operator of a RICO-class crime. All of the ruckus with Donald Trump and California/DOE VS. Trump is almost entirely based on West Coast and New York corrupt senators, and their insiders, freaking out about their Dark Money organized crime payola scam coming apart and getting exposed. 31There’s a reason why David Brock chooses to house an unregistered Professional Solicitor in his office to raise money for his conglomerate of Super PACs and non-profits. ================================ FURTHER PROOF OF THE CRIMES AND LIES: https://archive.fo/xCf3t https://neonnettle.com/news/6471-pelosi-s-brother-in-law-received-737m-taxpayer-money-for-failed- green-project https://voat.co/v/whatever/2239148 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/watch-college-students-love-ocasio-cortezs-green-new- deal-until-they-find-out-whats-really-in-it/ IN ADDITION TO OUR EYE-WITNESS, FIRST-HAND, VIEWING OF THESE CRIMES THESE SMALL SAMPLES OF THE BROADCAST NEWS REPORTS, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS, FBI CASE EVIDENCE AND AGENCY REPORTS PROVE EVERY ASSERTION WE HAVE MADE: - http://fbi-report.net - All FBI case files referencing "Solyndra", "Kleiner Perkins", "Rare-Earth Mining", "Stock Market Manipulation" and related search terms - https://stopelonfromfailingagain.com - http://londonworldwide.com - https://www.thecreepyline.com - https://fusion4freedom.com/about-gcf/ - https://fusion4freedom.com/the-green-corruption-files-archive/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelgate - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cleantech-crash-60-minutes/ - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/ - https://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-insider-trading-revealed-on-60-minutes-2011-11 - https://www.law360.com/articles/366325/gop-report-slams-white-house-over-535m-solyndra-loan - https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-list-of- washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2012/ - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=140291210 - https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/fundraiser-for-obama-urged-solyndra-deal-from-the-inside/ - https://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/10/either-rahm-or-obama-himself-pushed-to.html - https://archives-energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/ analysis/20120802solyndra.pdf - https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/FINAL-DOE-Loan-Guarantees- Report.pdf 32- https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY20/20160303/104591/HHRG-114-SY20-20160303- SD002.pdf - https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/email.pdf - https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ - https://driftglass.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-deadly-british-viper-character.html - https://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/28/western-intelligence-agencies-use-the-internet-fot-character- assassination/ - http://blog.agupieware.com/2014/02/snowden-drip-government-funded.html - https://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2014/02/26/the-nsa-and-gchq-are-criminal-enterprises/ - http://vcracket.weebly.com - https://mega.nz/#F!6Rk1hC7K!5FxlpPi_eG52GnYuN_JmeA - http://videonet111.com - http://atvm-loan.com - http://causeofaction.org/assets/uploads/2015/07/ECF-No.-38.pdf - http://causeofaction.org/assets/uploads/2015/07/ECF-No.-37.pdf - http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?11971582033 - http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2014/02/05/fisker-investors-executives-hit-by-another-lawsuit- kleiner-perkins-and-ray-lane-among-defendants/ - http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/a-humbled-kleiner-perkins-adjusts-its-strategy/ - http://www.mining.com/1-trillion-motherlode-of-lithium-and-gold-discovered-in-afghanistan/ - http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/TBaffwKixYI/AAAAAAAAH74/Wee8LTQfo3k/s1600/ afghanminerals.jpg - http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3063/pdf-page.jpg - https://news.wttw.com/sites/default/files/Letter%20from%20Bright%20Automotive%20to%20US %20Dept%20of%20Energy.pdf - https://gigaom.com/2010/08/18/the-greentech-vc-influence-over-washington/ - https://www.catholic.org/news/politics/story.php?id=42817 - https://europetodaynews.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/tesla-and-google-partnered-on-the-same-scam- against-the-public/ - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-25/cobalt-child-labour-smartphone-batteries-congo/10031330 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/congo-cobalt-mining-for-lithium-ion- battery/ - http://www.mining.com/1-trillion-motherlode-of-lithium-and-gold-discovered-in-afghanistan/ - https://www.dw.com/en/chiles-lithium-blessing-or-curse/a-43721539 - https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2017/06/15/a-battle-for-supremacy-in-the-lithium-triangle - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/lithium-fuel-green-revolution/ - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/09/26/blood-batteries-cobalt-and-the-congo/ - https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2018/02/27/the-worlds-cobalt-supply-is-in-jeopardy/ - https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/congo-cobalt-reliance-grows-despite-europe- discoveries - http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae9b1/pdf https://www.mining-technology.com/features/featuremining-iran-endless-opportunity-corruption-and- the-trump-question-5695882/ - https://www.brighteon.com/5809392344001 - https://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/high-net-worth/frank-giustra-takes-a-break-from- the-blade-runner-sequel-and-an-italian-olive-estate-to-return-to-his-first-love-a-gold-mine - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/giustra-backed-lithium-x-plunges-on-doubts-about- 33chinese-buyer/article38156222/ - https://globalnewstimes.wordpress.com/tag/frank-guistra-and-hillary-clinton/ - http://www.dear-white-house.com - http://archive.is/ox9pX - https://www.gold-eagle.com/article/hypocrisy-most-foul - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/congo-cobalt-mining-for-lithium-ion- battery/ - https://www.iisd.org/story/green-conflict-minerals/ - https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/09/the-dark-side-of-electric-cars-exploitative-labor- practices/ - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/dr-congo-loses-750m-corruption-mismanagement- 170721154134478.html ORGANIZATIONS AND WITNESSES WHO CAN ALSO VERIFY THESE FACTS: .