China Rips Off US Military With New “Mechanical Yak” Robot
In what appears to be a direct ripoff of the US Army’s quadrupedal robot, China showed off its new “mechanical yak,” designed to go places deemed too risky for humans.
Footage published on state-run media outlet People’s Daily Online’s YouTube page shows the quadrupedal robot performing maneuvers on all sorts of rugged terrain. The yak can carry 160 kilograms (334 pounds) while operating at 10 kilometers (six miles) per hour.
The robot is designed to haul military equipment in the most challenging terrains, such as cliffs, mountains, trenches, deserts, snowy areas, and muddy roads.
According to the state media, the yak has highly-advanced sensors that sense its environment and can avoid obstacles. It could be a game-changer for military logistics and reconnaissance missions on the heavily contested China-India border.
The yak is nearly identical to the US Army’s Boston Dynamics-built Legged Squad Support System, a powerful quadrupedal robot meant to carry gear, weapons, and other equipment. However, there’s one big difference. The yak is battery powered while the US’ is very noisy with a two-stroke petrol engine.
In the age of killer robots, the modern battlefield will be fought with AI combat robots, fifth-generation fighter jets, jet packs, lasers, new main battle rifles, and whatever other new technology that can be easily molded into a killing machine.
The White House wants to bring order to the ‘haphazard approach’ that is currently being employed by regulators to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.
The White House wants to set out a cohesive set of policies to regulate Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as currently legislation and its enforcement are scattered across sectors and agencies, according to multiple reports.
The Biden administration will release an executive order in the coming weeks to task federal agencies with assessing the risks and opportunities that Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies pose, Bloomberg first reported.
The order is set to come under the umbrella of national security efforts as the administration seeks to analyze cryptocurrencies and employ a cohesive regulatory framework that would cover Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, and NFTs, Barron’s reported Thursday.
“This is designed to look holistically at digital assets and develop a set of policies that give coherency to what the government is trying to do in this space,” a person familiar with the White House’s plan told Barron’s.
“Because digital assets don’t stay in one country, it’s necessary to work with other countries on synchronization.”
The regulatory efforts would reportedly involve the State Department, Treasury Department, National Economic Council, and Council of Economic Advisers, as well as the White House National Security Council as the administration gauges that cryptocurrencies have “economic implications for national security,” per the Barron’s report.
The White House’s plan is to “bring order to the haphazard approach that the government is now using to regulate crypto,” the person told Barron’s. Currently, different aspects of the cryptocurrency market are dealt with by different agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, but there’s little coordination and consensus when it comes to the classification of the many different assets in the market.
According to the Bloomberg report, senior officials at the administration had held multiple meetings on the plan, and the directive is expected to be presented to President Joe Biden in the coming weeks.
[ZH: So let’s just remind ourselves of how perceptions of bitcoin have changed over the years…]
#Bitcoin over time:
2010: No one uses it
2011-2012: Only cypherpunks use it
2013-2014: Only criminals use it
2015-2016: Only nerds use it
2017-2018: Only speculators use it
2019-2020: Only small firms use it
2021: Only small countries use it
2022: Matter of US national security
[ZH: May we dare to suggest crypto has only become a ‘matter of national security’ for the US since the idea of Putin using it to get around US sanctions and the nuclear-threat of SWIFT-deactivation started to circulate.]
“We have all seen the ATF letter that is spreading like wildfire across the internet, regarding the ATF plans to steal private property from dealers, and of course, I’m referring to the FRT-15 trigger,” Demonico said.
“All though I cannot authenticate this letter that is allegedly being circulated by the ATF. I can tell you we’ve received word from one dealer in Illinois late yesterday afternoon stating that the ATF visited him and handed him a cease and desist order and seized FRT-15 triggers,” he continued.
Demonico said he has a lot of experience dealing with the “corrupt and dirty practices of the ATF.” He said, “my jaw is absolutely on the floor in complete disbelief that they’re choosing to take action based on an illegitimate examination and report that was conducted by David Smith and approved by Earl Griffith at the ATF technology branch.”
Demonico went on to say the report is full of “outright lies,” labeling the forced reset trigger as a machine gun. He pointed to a video on the Rare Breed website that demonstrates the FRT-15 trigger is not a machine gun.
Demonico said the news of the alleged ATF memo was first put out by Gun Owners of America (GOA). He said the GOA has yet to support him but has a meeting with them, adding that since the ATF is attacking dealers, maybe the group will finally provide some assistance.
Demonico ends the video by saying, “we’re not back down, and we’ll see this through to the end,” adding “if the ATF can simply just say the FRT-15 is a machine gun without a claim being based on actual laws in the US code — what’s to stop them from reinterpreting the AR-15 altogether is a machine gun — there’s nothing to stop them from doing that.”
Florida-based owner-operator DeAndre Mahadeo, like other truckers who rolled past throngs of supporters just outside Toronto, got a rousing send-off on Thursday as he prepared to head to the capital, Ottawa, in a protest against COVID-19 vaccine mandates at the border.
Hundreds of people of all ages called them heroes and even freedom fighters as 15 to 20 trucks and a few hundred passenger vehicles paraded through a mall parking lot in Vaughan. Some handed over boxes of cookies, brownies and other snacks.
“We’re here to join a movement,” said Mahadeo, 30, a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen who regularly moves freight in both countries. “We need to end these restrictions once and for all.”
Across the Toronto area, supporters on overpasses cheered on convoys as they made their way along Canada’s busiest freight routes.
Mahadeo is fully vaccinated against COVID-19 so the mandates at the border haven’t affected his job. He continues to move auto parts back and forth between the countries.
But the long-haul trucker — who considers both countries his home — believes more is going on behind the vaccination requirements.
“There is a whole lot of overreach of the government, certainly in the U.S. and Canada and around the world,” said Mahadeo, who was born in Guyana. “Governments are using this as an opportunity to gain more leverage against the people.”
Mahadeo spoke as he inched his truck forward as his convoy prepared to join a larger one that had come from Niagara, Ontario. Multiple convoys under the auspices of the Freedom Convoy have been making their way toward Ottawa since the weekend — with the largest coming from western Canada.
A few trucks ahead of Mahadeo, Ontario owner-operator Tom Slawinski expressed frustration at the U.S. and Canadian governments. But for the unvaccinated driver, the consequences were more immediate since he can only run domestic freight now unless he gets the shot.
“I can’t make money,” Slawinski said.
The protest convoys bound for Ottawa started in response to the vaccine mandates that the U.S. and Canada imposed on cross-border drivers earlier this month. But they have emerged as a rallying point for Canadians against pandemic-related restrictions and the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau itself.
“I tried to join groups that have done this, but it’s always just kind of fizzled out. I feel now like it’s getting momentum,” said Carolyn Carey, of Newmarket, Ontario, one of the many nontruckers in the convoy.
Carey said she identified with the unvaccinated cross-border drivers, having been fired from her job in housekeeping at a hospital after refusing to get the shot.
“I should be able to choose and not have to be forced to take the vaccine,” she said.
Huge crowd here in Vaughan to support the convoy of truckers who are en route to Ottawa to protest vaccine rules for cross-border drivers. pic.twitter.com/K3x3YZpASr
“The small fringe minority of people who are on their way to Ottawa, who are holding unacceptable views that they are expressing, do not represent the views of Canadians,” Trudeau said.
Many in the crowd held signs calling out the prime minister, including some that read “Truck Frudeau.”
Organizers of the Freedom Convoy say that 50,000 trucks will converge in Ottawa. As of yet, reports from across Canada point to a smaller figure, with individual convoys numbering in the hundreds of vehicles to over 1,000, in the case of one spotted in Saskatchewan. On Wednesday, Ottawa police said they are expecting 1,000 to 2,000 protesters.
A GoFundMe campaign for the Freedom Convoy continues to see donations pour in. As of Thursday evening, it had raised over CA$6.3 million (US$5 million). The organizers have reportedly withdrawn CA$1 million after submitting a distribution plan to GoFundMe, which had been withholding the funds.
George Soros Pledges ‘Unprecedented’ $125 Million To Help Democrats Win In November
With President Biden’s approval rating in the gutter and Democrats increasingly concerned about their chances of holding on to Congress (as evidenced by Justice Breyer’s decision to retire), the Democratic Party is turning once again to one of its most reliable megadonors for a massive influx of campaign cash, which it will need if it wants to stave off massive Congressional losses in November, not to mention at the state level.
Politico reports that the nonagenerian billionaire is committing $125 million – an enormous and unprecedented (even for Soros) sum – to help Democrats win as many Congressional races of possible in November, and beyond.
It appears Soros’s top issue is voting rights, which also happens to be near the top of President Biden’s agenda as he and his Congressional allies struggle to pass a new voting rights bill.
The group, Democracy PAC, has served as Soros’ campaign spending vehicle since 2019, channeling more than $80 million to other Democratic groups and candidates during the 2020 election cycle.
The new, nine-figure investment from Soros is aimed at supporting pro-democracy “causes and candidates, regardless of political party” who are invested in “strengthening the infrastructure of American democracy: voting rights and civic participation, civil rights and liberties, and the rule of law,” Soros said in a statement shared first with POLITICO.
Soros added that the donation to the super PAC is a “long-term investment,” intended to support political work beyond this year.
Democracy PAC, the PAC tasked with doling out Soros’s millions, will be led by his son, Alexander Soros.
The donation places Soros among only a handful of donors who have managed to hit the 9-figure level. Already, his PAC has cut two large checks: one for $2.5 million to Senate Majority PAC, and the other for $1 million to House Majority PAC.
Of course, news of Soros’ involvement always has the chance of becoming a political liability for Democrats. Take for instance the fact that the newly elected Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, has essentially ordered his prosecutors to stop seeking prison sentences for most low level felonies, including armed robberies and drug dealing.
And let’s not forget about San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin, who has become downright infamous as nary a week goes by without some new viral video portraying some egregious example of legalized shoplifting in the City by the Bay.
And Soros’s political interests aren’t ending at the federal level. He has also donated $1 million to the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, a group dedicated to electing Democrats to be the chief official in charge of elections in a state. As Politico adds, once “little-known”, posts like these are drawing increasingly more attention from donors. We’ll let you, dear reader, take a guess as to why.
Journalist Jonathan Cook has a new blog post out on his experience with being throttled into invisibility by Silicon Valley algorithmic suppression that will ring all too familiar for any online content creators who’ve been sufficiently critical of official western narratives over the last few years.
“My blog posts once attracted tens of thousands of shares,” Cook writes. “Then, as the algorithms tightened, it became thousands. Now, as they throttle me further, shares can often be counted in the hundreds. ‘Going viral’ is a distant memory.”
“I won’t be banned,” he adds. “I will fade incrementally, like a small star in the night sky — one among millions — gradually eclipsed as its neighbouring suns grow ever bigger and brighter. I will disappear from view so slowly you won’t even notice.”
Cook says this began after the 2016 US election, which was when a major narrative push began for Silicon Valley corporations to eliminate “fake news” from their platforms and soon saw tech executives brought before the US Senate and told that they must “quell information rebellions” and come up with a mission statement expressing their commitment to “prevent the fomenting of discord” online.
My latest: Is it already too late to say goodbye? Because those independent voices in the new media you so value will wither and decay like autumn leaves once they have no audience https://t.co/X6wbmpgHBe
Arguably the most significant political moment in the United States since 9/11 and its immediate aftermath was when Democrats and their allied institutions concluded that Donald Trump’s election was a failure not of establishment politics but of establishment narrative control. From that point onwards, any online media creator who consistently disputes the narratives promoted by the same news outlets who’ve lied to us about every war has seen their view counts and new follows slashed.
By mid-2017 independent media outlets were already reporting across ideological lines that algorithm changes from important sources of viewership like Google had suddenly begun hiding their content from people who were searching for the subjects they reported on.
“In case anyone wants to know how Facebook suppression works — I have 330,000 followers there but they’ve stopped showing my posts to many people,” Redacted Tonight host Lee Camp tweeted in January 2018.
“I used to gain 6,000 followers a week. I now gain 500 and FB unsubscribes people without their knowledge — so my total number never increases.”
I saw my own shares and view counts rapidly diminish in 2017 as well, and saw my new Facebook page follows suddenly slow to a virtual standstill. It wasn’t until I started using mailing lists and giving indie media outlets blanket permission to republish all my content that I was able to grow my audience at all.
And Silicon Valley did eventually admit that it was in fact actively censoring voices who fall outside the mainstream consensus. In order to disprove the false right-wing narrative that Google only censors rightist voices, the CEO of Google’s parent company Alphabet admitted in 2020 to algorithmically throttling World Socialist Website. Last year the CEO of Google-owned YouTube acknowledged that the platform uses algorithms to elevate “authoritative sources” while suppressing “borderline content” not considered authoritative, which apparently even includes just marginally establishment-critical left-of-center voices like Kyle Kulinski. Facebook spokeswoman Lauren Svensson said in 2018 that if the platform’s fact-checkers (including the state-funded establishment narrative management firm Atlantic Council) rule that a Facebook user has been posting false news, moderators will “dramatically reduce the distribution of all of their Page-level or domain-level content on Facebook.”
In case anyone wants to know how Face book suppression works – I have 330,000 followers there but they’ve stopped showing my posts to many ppl. I used to gain 6,000 followers a week. I now gain 500 and FB unsubscribes ppl w/out their knowledge – so my total numbr never increases
People make a big deal any time a controversial famous person gets removed from a major social media platform, and rightly so; we cannot allow such brazen acts of censorship to become normalized. The goal is to normalize internet censorship on every front, and the powerful will push for that normalization to be expanded at every opportunity. Whether you dislike the controversial figure being deplatformed on a given day is entirely irrelevant; it’s not about them, it’s about expanding and normalizing internet censorship protocols on monopolistic government-tied speech platforms.
But far, far more consequential than overt censorship of individuals is censorship by algorithm. No individual being silenced does as much real-world damage to free expression and free thought as the way ideas and information which aren’t authorized by the powerful are being actively hidden from public view, while material which serves the interests of the powerful is the first thing they see in their search results. It ensures that public consciousness remains chained to the establishment narrative matrix.
It doesn’t matter that you have free speech if nobody ever hears you speak. Even in the most overtly totalitarian regimes on earth you can say whatever you want alone in a soundproof room.
That’s the biggest loophole the so-called free democracies of the western world have found in their quest to regulate online speech. By allowing these monopolistic megacorporations to become the sources everyone goes to for information (and even actively helping them along that path as in for example Google’s research grants from the CIA and NSA), it’s possible to tweak algorithms in such a way that dissident information exists online, but nobody ever sees it.
At the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, when asked by Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah to provide the name of one left-wing “high profile person or entity” that has been censored by #Google, Pichai named the #WSWS.https://t.co/Nq4vXN4S4s
You’ve probably noticed this if you’ve tried to search YouTube for videos which don’t align with the official narratives of western governments and media lately. That search function used to work like magic; like it was reading your mind. Now it’s almost impossible to find the information you’re looking for unless you’re trying to find out what the US State Department wants you to think. It’s the same with Google searches and Facebook, and because those giant platforms dictate what information gets seen by the general public, that wild information bias toward establishment narratives bleeds into other common areas of interaction like Twitter as well.
The idea is to let most people freely share dissident ideas and information about empire, war, capitalism, authoritarianism and propaganda, but to make it increasingly difficult for them to get their content seen and heard by people, and to make their going viral altogether impossible. To avoid the loud controversies and uncomfortable public scrutiny brought on by acts of overt censorship as much as possible while silently sweeping unauthorized speech behind the curtain. To make noncompliant voices “disappear from view so slowly you won’t even notice,” as Cook put it.
The status quo is not working. Our ecosystem is dying, we appear to be rapidly approaching a high risk of direct military confrontation between nuclear-armed nations, and our world is rife with injustice, inequality, oppression and exploitation. None of this is going to change until the public begins awakening to the problems with the current status quo so we can begin organizing a mass-scale push toward healthier systems. And that’s never going to happen as long as information is locked down in the way that it is.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. And as more and more people get their information about what’s happening in the world from online sources, Silicon Valley algorithm manipulation has already become one of the most consequential forms of narrative control.
* * *
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
US Asks Hungary To Host Troops Aimed At Russia, Despite Long Snubbing Orbán
It’s been revealed that the United States approached Hungary this week to ask the country to host a temporary troop deployment related to the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto “received an American request about temporary deployment of troops” – CNN reports.
Hungary’s Defense Ministry is said to be discussing the formal request; however, given the tense US administration relationship with the Viktor Orbán government since Biden took office – centered on seeking to isolate the conservative prime minister known for his unapologetic ‘Hungary first’ policies – the prospect remains highly unlikely. This comes as Biden announced Friday that he’ll be sending a small number of American forces to Eastern Europe: “I’ll be moving troops to eastern Europe in the NATO countries in the near term.” He qualified in the remarks reporters at Joint Base Andrews after returning from Pittsburg that this will be “not too many” troops.
This is public now: US has approached Hungary about temporary troop deployment, says Hungarian FM. Hungary “received an American request about temporary deployment of troops” in the country, FM Peter Szijjarto said Friday. Defense Ministry is conducting talks on the matter. https://t.co/PFm9Y7ZY5e
On Thursday and Friday, U.S. President Joe Biden will gather leaders from over 100 countries to a virtual “Summit for Democracy.” He invited rule-of-law troublemaker Poland. He invited Serbia, despite some questionable democratic credentials. He invited every EU member but one.
That one was Hungary.
CNN further reports that Romania and Bulgaria are also mulling the acceptance of additional US deployments. Both eastern European NATO countries are typically much more amenable to US security requests, and Romania already provocatively hosts coastal defense missiles on the Black Sea.
Suddenly Washington wants something from Hungary, after seeking to isolate and humiliate Budapest…
Among the security guarantees Russia is currently seeking from Washington and Brussels is precisely that NATO forces leave Bulgaria and Romania.
Thus when it comes to Hungary, from the point of view of officials in Budapest they are unlikely to want to see their country thrust into the middle of the tense escalating Russia vs. West standoff.
“The deployments would number approximately 1,000 personnel to each country and would be similar to the forward battle groups currently stationed in the Baltic States and Poland,” CNN notes of the numbers under initial discussion – though without doubt this would be ramped up in the instance of any potential Russian incursion into Ukraine.
Russia: “We don’t want a war”
Ukraine: “An invasion is not imminent”
NATO: There is “no certainty” that Russia plans to invade
Meanwhile, in a Russian media interview FM Sergey Lavrov said Friday “If it’s up to the Russian Federation, there will be no war. We do not want wars. But we won’t allow the West to grossly ignore our interests, either,” according to Sputnik.
Anew court filing by special counsel John Durham reveals that Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz concealed crucial information from Durham in connection with the ongoing prosecution of Michael Sussmann, a former attorney to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
The filing also reveals that Horowitz failed to disclose that his office is in possession of two cellphones used by former FBI general counsel James Baker. The phones may contain information that’s important to the Sussmann case, as well as to a separate criminal leak investigation of Baker that Durhampersonally conducted between 2017 and 2019.
Horowitz first came to public prominence in June 2018 when he issued areport on the FBI’s actions leading up to the 2016 presidential election. Horowitz followed up in December 2019 with anotherreport on the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the bureau’s pursuit of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
Durham’s filing on Jan. 25 involves discovery issues surrounding Sussmann’s upcoming trial for allegedly making a materially false statement to the FBI’s then-general counsel James Baker. As part of Durham’s discovery obligations, the Special Counsel’s Office met with Horowitz and his team on Oct. 7, 2021, and subsequently requested any materials, including any “documents, records, and information” regarding Sussmann that may have been in the possession of the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
On Dec. 17, 2021, Horowitz’s office provided Durham with information that Sussmann had given the OIG information in early 2017, that an OIG “employee’s computer was ‘seen publicly’ in ‘Internet traffic’ and was connecting to a Virtual Private Network in a foreign country.” It isn’t clear what this information was about, why Sussmann would know about this information, or why he would have been interested in the internet activities of OIG employees.
It also isn’t known why Sussmann, a private citizen, would have been seeking out the OIG shortly after he was pushing information detrimental to Trump to both the FBI and the CIA.
At the time of the Dec. 17 disclosure, “the OIG represented to [Durham’s] team that it had “no other file or other documentation” relating to this cyber matter.” However, last week, Sussmann’s attorneys informed Durham that there was additional information, including the fact that Sussmann had met with Horowitz in March 2017 to personally pass along the information about the OIG employee’s computer VPN use. This meeting between Horowitz and Sussmann hadn’t been disclosed by Horowitz to Durham during their previous meetings and interactions.
It isn’t known why Horowitz would have taken a personal meeting from Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer.According to Bill Shipley, a former federal prosecutor, “[y]ou don’t generally just call the IG and get a meeting with him personally.” It also isn’t clear why Horowitz chose not to inform Durham of the meeting—particularly as it pertained directly to information that Horowitz’s office had been specifically requested to relay to Durham’s special counsel probe.
Sussmann’s attorneys further informed Durham that the VPN information had come from Rodney Joffe, a computer expert with close connections to the FBI. This was another material fact that hadn’t been disclosed by Horowitz. Joffe is of great import to Durham’s case against Sussmann and to the wider investigation into the origins of the Russia collusion investigation, since he was alleged to have provided Sussmann with falsified data about contacts between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
Those alleged contacts were used by Hillary Clinton and her campaignto push the narrative that Trump was compromised by the Kremlin. Durham had noted in a previous filing that “[Joffe’s] goal was to support an ‘inference’ and ‘narrative’ regarding Trump that would please certain ‘VIPs.’” Asubsequent filing by Durham noted that these VIPs were “individuals at the defendant’s [Sussmann’s] law firm and the Clinton Campaign.” Joffe also is alleged tohave been offered a high-ranking position in a Clinton administration.
The omission of information by Horowitz didn’t end with his meeting with Sussmann or the information on Joffe. Durham’s office has since discovered that the OIG “currently possesses two FBI cell phones” that belonged to Baker, the former FBI general counsel. Durham’s discovery of Horowitz’s possession of Baker’s two phones does not appear to have come through Horowitz or his office.
According to Durham’s filing, “in early January 2022, the Special Counsel’s Office learned for the first time that the OIG currently possesses two FBI cellphones of the former FBI General Counsel.”
Sussmann is alleged to have lied to Baker when he tried to push incriminating data about Trump and Alfa Bank to the FBI; that data later turned out to be false.
That makes Baker, and his cellphones, central to the case against Sussmann.
There’s also another matter that relates directly to Baker and his undisclosed phones. Baker hadbeen the subject of a criminal leak investigation for “unauthorized disclosures to the media” that wasbeing conducted by Durham when he was the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut.
During this investigation, Durham or a member of his team reportedlyquestioned Baker’s credibility. That memo is currently being sought by Sussmann’s attorneys. Although it’s not known with certainty, it’s believed that the leak investigation into Baker ultimately was closed without any charges. The disclosure about Baker’s cellphones would appear to be material not only to the Sussmann case, but also to the Baker leak investigation.
High Profile Investigations
Horowitz was in charge of a sequence of highly influential investigations into events leading up to and following the 2016 presidential election. Horowitz examined the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s private email server as well as the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign, alleged Russian collusion, and the resulting Carter Page FISA and abuse of the FISA court.
The Clinton email investigation review resulted in a2018 OIG report that outlined a number of failures on the part of the FBI and made recommendations such as improving the FBI’s media contact policy and clarifying guidelines on making public statements. However, certain crucial issues, such as the fact that then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was supervising the investigation while his wife was running for a Virginia state Senate seat and had received large sums of campaign funding from Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe, were glossed over by Horowitz.
The IG merely recommended that “ethics officials include the review of campaign donations for possible conflict issues when Department employees or their spouses run for public office.”
Horowitz’s 2018 review was followed by a deeper, more thorough investigation that resulted in theCarter Page FISA review report in 2019. Although this report detailed a litany of failures by the FBI and “at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Page FISA applications,” the IG’s report concluded that there were valid grounds for opening the Crossfire Hurricane probe into the Trump campaign for alleged collusion with Russia.
Immediately following the release of the IG’s 2019 report, then-Attorney General William Barr and John Durham, the U.S. attorney who Barr appointed to run a parallel criminal investigation into the origins of the FBI’s investigation, issuedstatementsdisputingHorowitz’s conclusion regarding the opening of Crossfire Hurricane.
Durham, who was later appointed special counsel by Barr,noted that, unlike the IG, his investigation wasn’t limited to “developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department” and included information from “other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.” Durham stated that based on the information he had collected, he advised Horowitz a few weeks before the IG’s report was made public that “we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”
The issue of whether the FBI’s Trump–Russia investigation was properly predicated is critical. If FBI leadership opened the investigation based on false pretenses, this would be direct evidence that the FBI’s top leadership had interfered in a presidential campaign. However, if the investigation was found to be properly predicated and legitimately opened, then the FBI’s leadership would effectively be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, and any blame for subsequent investigative failures could fall on mistakes by lower-level staff.
Although it has never been entirely clear how or why Horowitz had determined that the information used by the FBI was sufficient to open the investigation, there had been speculation that Horowitz was hampered by the fact that an IG’s investigative reach is limited to their own department and therefore, he might have reached the wrong conclusion. But this explanation fails to account for the fact that Horowitz could have left his conclusion on the FBI’s opening of its investigation out of his report, precisely because of his limited investigative powers.
Horowitz’s conclusion was all the more surprising, given the damning information contained within his 2019 report. It cited material failures of the FBI, including “not only the operational team, but also of the managers and supervisors, including senior officials, in the chain of command”—with regard to the FISA warrant application on Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
Horowitz’s findings were so significant that he recommended the FBI’s “entire chain of command” outlined in his report for “consideration of how to assess and address their performance failures.”
During congressional testimony, Horowitz also appeared to directlycontradict assertions regarding his own report’s conclusion of FBI exoneration.
“It’s unclear what the motivations [of the FBI] were,” he noted. “On the one hand, gross incompetence, negligence? On the other hand, intentionality, and where in between? We weren’t in a position—with the evidence we had—to make that conclusion. But I’m not ruling it out.”
New Questions
However, the new disclosure of Horowitz’s failure to fully cooperate with Durham might raise new questions about the conclusions the IG drew in his reviews of the Clinton email investigation, the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane inquiry, and the Carter Page FISA warrant applications.
Both of the Horowitz reports from2018 and2019 found significant errors on the part of the FBI, but in a manner that could be described as a “limited hangout,” his reports stopped short of formally declaring fundamental wrongdoing that would have invalidated the FBI probes—despite seemingly overwhelming evidence.
Notably, despite the lengthy list of FBI errors and misdoings, only one individual was ultimately charged—and he receivedonly probation, despite having fabricated evidence that allowed the Page FISA to go forward.
Media organizations echoed the report’s 2019 conclusion with headlines such as “Justice Department watchdog finds Trump-Russia probe was not tainted by political bias” or “Report sharply criticizes FBI but finds no partisan bias in Russia probe.”
To this day, there has been no resolution of Horowitz’s questionable finding that the Trump–Russia collusion investigation was properly predicated. Horowitz claimed that the investigation began because of a tip from the Australian ambassador in London that a Trump aide, George Papadopoulos, had made a “suggestion of a suggestion” that Russia might be able to help Trump get elected.
At the time the tip was made, July 26, 2016, the author of a dossier on Trump, former MI6 agent Christopher Steele had already shared early dossier reports with his FBI handler, Michael Gaeta,who noted that those reports were already circulating within the FBI and at a “high level in our nation’s capital.”
The FBI’s investigation also immediately targeted Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, as well as Page, even though Papadopoulos had never mentioned either of the two. A few days later, the investigation added retired Gen. Michael Flynn—at that point an adviser to the Trump campaign—to its list of targets, again without Papadopoulos having ever mentioned Flynn.
It has long been suspected that the FBI’s Trump–Russia investigation had been underway for some time before it was formally opened on July 31, 2016. And we know that the FBI had previously opened acounterintelligence investigation into Carter Page months earlier, on April 6, 2016, immediately after his appointment to the Trump team was announced. The tip from the Australian ambassador appears to have been a convenient excuse to formalize the investigation, rather than to cause its inception.
Based on the limited information that can be gleaned from Durham’s latest filing, it isn’t yet clear what connection, if any, exists between Horowitz’s early contact with Clinton campaign lawyer Sussmann, and his subsequent findings on the Clinton email investigation, the larger Trump–Russia investigation, and the Page FISA application.
Sussmann’s defense will no doubt use this latest revelation to cast doubt on Durham’s investigation. It appears his attorneys already are attempting to cast doubt on Baker’s character as a witness.
For Durham, the issue goes far beyond his investigation of Sussmann. It was already known that Durham wasthreading a political needle between pursuing his investigation and keeping the heads of the Justice Department at bay.
Russia-Ukraine War Would Be “Horrific”, Civilians “Will Suffer Immensely”: Pentagon
In a Friday briefing on the Russia-Ukraine situation, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Russia’s military build-up near Ukraine’ border is “larger in scale and scope than we have seen in recent memory” and that there’s been nothing like it since the Cold war. Austin said of Putin that he “clearly now has that capability” to invade Ukraine.
However, this contradicts Ukrainian defense leaders’ own assessment. The head of the National Security and Defense Council Oleksiy Danilov told a foreign correspondent that “As of today, a full-scale invasion with the resources they have on our borders will be insufficient.”
While standing alongside Joint Chiefs chairman Mark Milley, Secretary Austin still admitted it’s as yet unclear if Putin intends to order an invasion. Milley, for his part, was blunt in terms of what a full-scale war would mean: “the civilian population [of Ukraine] will suffer immensely” if war breaks out there, he said.
Gen. Milley for the first time gave a realist Pentagon view of what war would actually mean:
“If that was unleashed on Ukraine, it would be significant, very significant, and it would result in a significant amount of casualties,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley said.
“And you can imagine what that might look like in dense urban areas, along roads and so on and so forth. It would be horrific, it will be terrible.”
The remarks are significant given the two top American generals have been quiet over the past week of bellicose statements and predictions coming from the White House. For example, both Jen Psaki and Antony Blinken have been using the sensational word “imminent” to describe the “Russian invasion threat”. In a Thursday phone call, Ukraine’s President Zelensky himself had to tell Biden to calm down the dangerous rhetoric.
The generals also took the opportunity to warn Russia, saying it too will suffer greatly duee to any aggression:
“If Russia chooses to invade Ukraine it will not be cost-free, in terms of casualties or other significant effects.”
…However, they stressed, the United States was prepared to send troops to reinforce and protect NATO allies in eastern Europe that faced a potential threat from a Russian attack on Ukraine, which is not part of the Atlantic alliance.
“An attack on one NATO ally is an attack against all,” Milley warned.
…Though it’s hard to know exactly what’s meant by this, given Ukraine is not a NATO member and does not enjoy the benefits of the Article 5 collective defense treaty.
Earlier on Friday, Zelensky in televised remarks said “we do see” the 100,000 Russian troops across the border (albeit still on Russia’s own sovereign territory) – “If it happens, it will be open war. A horrible war, and we understand these things.” But he also expressed hope that a diplomatic resolution remains, saying that Russia can take steps to clearly confirm it does not plan to attack Ukraine.
#Russia‘s military buildup near #Ukraine has expanded to include supplies of blood along with other medical materials that would allow it to treat casualties, in yet another key indicator of Moscow’s military readiness, three US officials tell Reuters. https://t.co/4gzUT30Lfl
Crucially the Ukrainian president also said he’s ready to meet Putin “in any format” to discuss the Donbas standoff:
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has said that he is prepared for a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in any format.
“I do wish to have such a meeting. I am not afraid of any format, bilateral (with the Russian president – TASS) or whatever. It does not matter. I am ready,” he told a news conference attended by foreign mass media, telecast on the Ukraine-24 television channel.
Statements in Russian media indicate that urgent communications may be taking place on this. Such a meeting, if it materializes, would without doubt indicate that there will be no Russia-Ukraine war anytime in the near future.
As for other comments of US Defense Secretary Austin, he appears to be in agreement that there’s a diplomatic way forward. “Conflict is not inevitable. There is still time and space for diplomacy,” he asserted.
“We don’t believe that President Putin has made a final decision to use these forces against Ukraine, but he clearly now has that capability.”
-US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin
I thought Russia was planning to invade after the Winter Olympics?
“Mr. Putin can do the right thing as well,” Austin added. “There is no reason that this situation has to devolve into conflict. He can choose to de-escalate. He can order his troops away.”
In recent weeks, national attention became focused on photos and videos showing Union Pacific rail tracks littered with discarded cartons and boxes following organized looting just east of downtown Los Angeles.
Many of the packages that hadn’t been stolen or damaged would head toward Chicago or Canada before they finally reach the doorsteps of their recipients, including one that contained a picture of a family dressed in festive attire.
Many factors are said to be behind the cargo theft surge in Los Angeles, including the supply chain bottleneck that causes trains to pause longer on tracks, a lack of Union Pacific special agents patrolling along the tracks, the presence of homeless encampments near rail lines, and—according to several experts who spoke with The Epoch Times—the lax prosecution policies under Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón.
Between October and December of 2021, Union Pacific special agents and other law enforcement agencies made at least 100 arrests along the tracks in Los Angeles, according to a company statement.
Its special agents have arresting powers and work with local law enforcement agencies, such as the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and California Highway Patrol.
Police can arrest people on tracks for trespassing, but not theft, often due to lack of evidence.
“Theft is hard to prove unless you actually catch them in the act,” John Jay College of Criminal Justice adjunct professor Joseph Giacalone, a retired detective sergeant, told The Epoch Times. “If you did not catch them in the act, they say, ‘Well, I found this on the street.’ How do you prove or disprove that?”
However, trespassing is one misdemeanor that Gascón has ordered his office to no longer prosecute.
On Dec. 7, 2020, his first day in office, Gascón told his staff to stop prosecuting a group of misdemeanors including trespassing, disturbing the peace, loitering, being under the influence of a controlled substance, and resisting arrest.
While each district attorney has the discretion to deviate from Gascón’s new policy, they must consult with a supervisor, document their reasoning in writing, and record the supervisor’s determination in the case file.
Most of the 100 arrests made by Union Pacific and other agencies during the past three months didn’t go anywhere. Fewer than half of those arrested were booked, according to a Union Pacific spokesperson.
“Gascón’s misdemeanor policy does not permit prosecutors to file trespass or loitering in most situations,” Kathleen Cady, a former Los Angeles prosecutor, told The Epoch Times. “Without these tools, criminals can trespass, loiter, steal, get arrested, get released, and repeat over and over again.”
Giacalone thinks Gascón’s policy invites more people to commit crimes.
“The problem that comes into this now is that people who would normally not partake in this type of behavior look at it and say, ‘There is really no risk to this. If I get caught, I’m just going to get let go. No big deal,’” he said.
In 2021, Gascón’s office received only 47 cases from law enforcement in which Union Pacific was a victim. That number was 56 in 2020, according to the office.
However, in 2021, Union Pacific saw a 160 percent increase in criminal rail theft in Los Angeles County compared to 2020, according to a company statement.
John Jay College of Criminal Justice emerita professor Dorothy Schulz thinks that one of the reasons behind the drop in the number of cases brought to prosecutors in 2021 was a demoralized police force.
“When prosecutors just won’t prosecute, after a while it becomes not sensible for police to continue to bring those cases to them,” Schulz told The Epoch Times.
Out of the 47 cases, 27 were charged by Gascón’s office, including both felonies and misdemeanor offenses alleging burglary, theft, and receiving stolen property.
Ten cases were declined for filing because of a lack of evidence.
Another 10 were declined because Gascón’s office deemed the alleged offenses unfit for prosecution, such as a homeless person being within 20 feet of the tracks and simple possession of drugs for personal use, according to Gascón’s office.
The Epoch Times reached out to Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office for comment, but didn’t receive a reply by press time.
In a public letter to Union Pacific, Gascón said the railroad company had done a poor job of securing containers and had lowered the number of agents patrolling the area in 2021.
“We can ensure that appropriate cases are filed and prosecuted; however, my office is not tasked with keeping your sites secure and the District Attorney alone cannot solve the major issues facing your organization,” Gascón said.
Union Pacific just transferred more special agents to the Los Angeles tracks, according to an email to The Epoch Times. The company also added drones, fencing, and trespass detection systems.
California Gov. Gavin Newson plans to send $255 million to local law enforcement agencies to hire more officers to combat theft-related crimes, as part of his Real Public Safety Plan.
