THE
INSIDER TRADING SCAMS OF CALIFORNIA POLITICIANS
Wealthy
Government Officials Proven
To Be Making
Millions Trading Constituents Business Interests With Remarkable
Timing Provided
By Insider Trading Schemes With Their Political
Financier/Beneficiaries.
Never-before-seen
IRS records show that Government officials, Senators and agency heads
are making multimillion-dollar bets on the stocks of direct
competitors and partners — and doing so with exquisite timing
provided
by insider payola graft tips..
In
“The
Secret IRS Files - Inside the Tax Records of the .001% “ (
https://www.propublica.org/series/the-secret-irs-files ); The
Panama Papers, The Swiss Leaks and other leaks, it is quite obvious
from the records that Senators Reid, Pelosi, Harris, Feinstein, White
House executives and much of the US. Department Of Energy are
complicit in manipulating public policy in order to profiteer while
harming their enemies using government resources.
Here
is how this works: On
Feb. 21, 2018, August Troendle, an Ohio billionaire, made a
remarkably well-timed stock trade. He sold $1.1 million worth of
shares of Syneos Health the day before a management shake-up caused
the company’s stock to plunge 16%. It was the largest one-day drop
that year for Syneos’ share price. The company was one Troendle
knew well. He is the CEO of Medpace, one of Syneos’ chief
competitors in a niche industry. Both Syneos and Medpace handle
clinical trials for biopharma companies, and that year they had
jointly launched a trade association for companies in the field. The
day after selling the Syneos shares in February 2018, Troendle bought
again — at least $3.9 million worth. The value of his Syneos stake
then rose 75% in the year that followed.
In February 2019,
Troendle sold much of that position, netting $2.3 million in profit.
Two days later, Syneos disclosed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission was investigating its accounting practices. The news sent
the company’s shares tumbling. Troendle’s sale avoided a 25%
loss, the stock’s largest decline in such a short period during
either that or the previous year. (Troendle declined to
comment.)
The Medpace executive is among dozens of top
executives who have traded shares of either competitors or other
companies with close connections to their own. A Gulf of Mexico oil
executive invested in one partner company the day before it announced
good news about some of its wells. A paper-industry executive made a
37% return in less than a week by buying shares of a competitor just
before it was acquired by another company. And a toy magnate traded
hundreds of millions of dollars in stock and options of his main
rival, conducting transactions on at least 295 days. He made an 11%
return over a recent five-year period, even as the rival’s shares
fell by 57%. These transactions are captured in a vast IRS dataset of
stock trades made by the country’s wealthiest people, part of a
trove of tax data leaked to ProPublica. ProPublica analyzed millions
of those trades, isolated those by corporate executives trading in
companies related to their own, then identified transactions that
were anomalous — either because of the size of the bets or because
individuals were trading a particular stock for the first time or
using high-risk, high-return options for the first time.
The
records give no indication as to why executives made particular
trades or what information they possessed; they may have simply been
relying on years of broad industry knowledge to make astute bets at
fortuitous moments. Still, the records show many instances where the
executives bought and sold with exquisite timing. Such
trading records have never been publicly available. Even the SEC
itself doesn’t have such a comprehensive database. The records
provide an unprecedented glimpse into how the titans of American
industry make themselves even wealthier in the stock market.
U.S.
securities law bars “insider trading” — buying or selling
stocks based on access to nonpublic information not available to
other investors — under certain circumstances. Historically,
insider trading prosecutions and SEC enforcement have both focused on
corporate employees, and those close to them, trading in the stock of
their own companies.
But executives at companies, and
n the Federal Government,
can also have extensive access to nonpublic information about rivals,
partners or vendors through their business. Buying or selling stock
based on that knowledge can run afoul of insider-trading law,
according to experts. ProPublica described multiple trades, without
mentioning names, to Robert Zink, a former chief of the Justice
Department’s criminal fraud section, who responded that if he were
still at the Justice Department, “of course we would look at it.”
He added that the key to ProPublica’s findings is “the trading
doesn’t appear to be a one- or two-time thing. It’s happening a
lot.” Harvey Pitt, former chair of the SEC, said it was unwise for
corporate officials to bet on the fortunes of competing
companies.
“Executives should not be trading in the
stocks of their competitors,” Pitt said. “Why go looking for
trouble? It’s perfectly possible to invest in the stock market
without investing in companies you have actual nonpublic information
about or that you might be argued to have nonpublic information
about.”
There’s at least one sign that the SEC has gotten
interested in this sort of trading. In 2021, the agency brought an
insider-trading case against an executive at a biopharmaceutical
company who learned his own company was about to get acquired, then
bought options in a competitor, whose share price also rose on the
news. (The case is still pending; the defendant has denied improper
conduct.) It’s not clear if that action is a harbinger of increased
enforcement by the SEC, which declined to comment about its
enforcement priorities.
Insider trading is a simple concept and
simultaneously difficult to prove, because it hinges on blurry
definitions and court rulings that have favored defendants and
weakened enforcement. Matters are even murkier when it comes to
executives buying and selling shares of rivals and partners. This can
be perfectly legal.
But even when legal, such trades can allow
executives to win when their companies lose, according to securities
experts. Executives are often handsomely compensated with their own
company’s stock, which gives them a direct reward for maximizing
profits and raising their company’s stock price. Owning shares of
competitors' stock potentially gives them a reason to root for their
rivals to succeed, said Alan Jagolinzer, a professor of financial
accounting at the University of Cambridge’s business school.
And
by making millions through trading on nonpublic information,
executives could contribute to the perception that the stock market
is rigged to benefit the privileged. Well-placed executives enjoy
access to information within their industry that isn’t available to
ordinary investors. The perception that industry insiders use that
knowledge for personal gain could undermine the public’s confidence
that the markets are fair.
In the wake of the stock market
crash of 1929, Americans learned that wealthy corporate executives
had taken advantage of their positions to reap profits on their
personal investments. In response, Congress created the SEC and
passed reforms aimed at leveling the playing field for investors.
Those reforms required top executives of public companies, who swim
in an ocean of nonpublic information, to disclose any trades they
make in their own company’s stock.
This disclosure
requirement, however, has never applied to trades that executives
make in shares of partner companies and competitors. Congress also
didn’t explicitly ban, or even define, insider trading. Instead, it
generally outlawed securities fraud, and left it to regulators and
judges to hash out the specifics.
Still, the basic concept of
insider trading is well-established. Any employee (or contractor who
works for them, such as lawyers or investment bankers) who knows
about, say, a coming announcement of a bad quarter, a new blockbuster
product or an upcoming takeover is generally prohibited from buying
or selling shares in that company.
To bring a case, federal
authorities have to prove two main elements. First, they must show
that the trader had what’s known as “material nonpublic
information”: a significant fact, not yet publicly known, that
would affect the company’s share price. And second, that the
employee who traded on that information, or provided the tip to the
person who did, had a duty not to disclose it or use it for personal
benefit.
These elements can be hard to pin down. The CEO of a
public company can argue their well-timed trade of a competitor’s
shares was informed by a deep knowledge of the industry, not a
nonpublic tip. The owner of a private firm may argue that they can
use nonpublic information from their own company to trade the stock
of competitors because they have no duty not to use the information
for personal benefit.
Many employers add their own
restrictions. Law firms and investment managers often require
employees to clear any securities trades ahead of time. Some
companies have policies that forbid trading while in possession of
nonpublic information about competitors, clients or partners.
Medpace, the publicly traded company that Troendle has led while
profiting from trades in several competitors, acknowledges the
likelihood that employees will learn nonpublic information about
firms other than their own and warns that employees “who obtain
material non-public information about another company in the course
of their duties are prohibited from trading in the stock or
securities of the other company.”
No other executives in
ProPublica’s database appear to have traded in shares of rival
companies on the scale that Isaac Larian did. The CEO of MGA
Entertainment, whose Bratz fashion dolls competed with Mattel’s
Barbie dolls, Larian traded hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
his rival’s securities between 2005 and 2019. (Records show Larian
also traded, often profitably, in shares of Hasbro, another close
competitor.)
Over a recent five-year span, Larian earned about
$28 million in profit on Mattel trades. That equates to an 11% return
on his investment, which sounds like a modest outcome until you
consider that Mattel’s stock crashed by 57% during the same
period.
MGA and Mattel are fierce competitors. Larian has
poached Mattel employees, and he frequently lashes out at the company
on social media and cable news. He uses mocking nicknames to describe
Mattel executives in public, referring to former general counsel Bob
Normile as Bob “Abnormal,” and refers to the company as the “evil
empire.”
Mattel and MGA have sued and countersued each other.
Larian’s rival filed suit in 2004, claiming MGA had stolen the idea
for Bratz, its first giant success. The litigation dragged on for
years, with MGA ultimately claiming victory after an appeal.
And
through it all, Larian was buying and selling shares of Mattel. For
example, on June 5, 2008, he sold $3 million of Mattel stock. That
same day, he was in court fighting the company in the Bratz lawsuit —
and he had just obtained evidence that could hurt Mattel. He had
received an anonymous letter alleging Mattel was spying on Larian and
his family. It was a potentially game-changing piece of evidence in a
lawsuit in which Larian’s MGA was being accused of unsavory
business practices.
The judge ordered the letter sealed, but
its existence became public later that day, when it was revealed in
the press. The next day, Mattel stock fell 2.6%. Having sold the day
before, Larian avoided the loss on those shares.
By 2015, the
two companies were in litigation once again. At that point, MGA was
alleging that Mattel was stealing its ideas for new toys. In April,
Larian emailed Mattel’s CEO after the two met, suggesting that
Mattel’s share price would rise if the two companies came to an
out-of-court agreement. “I believe the street will reward the
Mattel stock positively once this is settled and the legal fees go
away,” Larian wrote in the email.
But Larian never settled.
And he appears to have invested millions in bets against Mattel
during the month the companies were discussing a settlement. The
trades are not described as short sales in the IRS data. But when
Mattel’s share price fell, Larian’s broker reported profits, a
scenario two securities experts said suggested the trades were either
short trades or stock options that Larian took out in anticipation
the stock would tumble.
Larian has publicly acknowledged
shorting Mattel stock. “I made a LOT more money shorting Mattel
stock than they did running a $4.5 billion toy company,” Larian
boasted in one LinkedIn post in 2020. (In other instances, he has
also posted about holding a long position in Mattel. “I’m a major
shareholder,” Larian said on LinkedIn in 2017.)
Larian’s
trades sometimes corresponded with the rollout of new MGA products
that could cut into Mattel’s market share and thus might lower
Mattel’s stock price. In the month before MGA unveiled a new line
of Bratz dolls in July 2015, Larian appears to have invested (here,
too, the evidence is not conclusive) about $3 million betting against
Mattel.
At other times, Larian traded Mattel stock before the
company announced news, which industry experts said he may have been
in a position to learn about as CEO of a rival. Toy companies all
deal with the same vendors and retail stores and compete with each
other for prime shelf space. It’s not uncommon to gain intelligence
on how well a competitor is doing. And according to interviews with
eight people who have worked for him, Larian is a boss with an
endless appetite for information about his company and its
competitors, constantly grilling subordinates on minutiae about the
industry.
On July 26, 2017, Larian sold $1.4 million
worth of Mattel shares. The next day, Mattel announced its earnings
for the previous quarter, with declining sales for Barbie and some of
the toymaker’s other doll lines, including Monster High and
American Girl, all of which MGA had competed with. Mattel’s stock
fell nearly 8% by the end of the next day, the beginning of a 23%
slide over the next month. Larian avoided those losses.
ProPublica
described Larian’s trading history — without identifying him or
the companies involved — to multiple securities experts. They said
the pattern was potentially troubling and deserved regulatory and
legal scrutiny. But they also noted numerous caveats and ways in
which the law offers latitude for this sort of trading. Generally,
the experts said, these types of trades are more perilous for
executives at either public companies or private firms with
investors. Executives at such companies typically have a clear duty
to refrain from using company information for their own personal
benefit, according to experts.
But if an executive owns all of
his company, trading ahead of his own actions, such as the
announcement of a new product line, or based on his own sales data,
would likely not be legally problematic. (Larian’s tax data
suggests he owns about 80% of the company, but it’s not clear
whether another person or a different Larian entity owns the rest.)
“U.S. law does not generally prohibit trading on information that
you own,” said Joshua Mitts, a Columbia University law professor
who has studied insider trading laws.
However, using
confidential information from outside one’s own company, such as if
an executive traded after learning something about a competitor from
a retailer, experts say, could raise legal questions, as could
trading after learning a nonpublic fact that was expected to remain
confidential during litigation or settlement talks. “The SEC would
certainly look at this,” Mitts said.
Pitt, the former SEC
chair, echoed those concerns. “This conduct contains the seeds of
some very potentially pernicious activity,” he said. “This is
very risky.”
Larian declined requests for an interview
and also declined multiple requests to answer a list of detailed
questions for this article. His lawyer, Sanford Michelman, told
ProPublica that any suggestion that Larian violated the law is “false
and defamatory.” He asserted that they were not aware of any
evidence suggesting that Larian possessed material, nonpublic
information that Larian knew was obtained in breach of a duty.
Michelman also accused ProPublica of making “false assumptions and
allegations” but did not identify any specific errors in
ProPublica’s reporting. Often executives can know even more about
their business partners than they do about their competitors.
ProPublica’s data shows that some executives have bought stock in
their partners with superb timing.
Gerald Boelte is the
chairman and founder of LLOG Exploration, one of the largest
privately owned oil production companies in the U.S. After the
Deepwater Horizon spill spewed millions of gallons of oil into the
Gulf of Mexico in 2010, some companies gave up on drilling there. But
Boelte stayed, buying up new leases.
One of Boelte’s oil
production partners was Stone Energy, at the time a publicly traded
company; both LLOG and Stone were based in Louisiana. In 2013, the
two companies drilled a deepwater well together in the gulf. And in
June 2015, they struck oil together on a well in another part of the
gulf known as Viosca Knoll.
That same summer, a separate
project Stone was working on in another part of the gulf south of
Louisiana, the Cardona wells, looked to be turning into a success. In
an earnings report on Aug. 5, 2015, Stone announced that the value of
its reserves had increased, along with revealing promising new
details of the Cardona field. In the days that followed, Stone’s
stock surged.
That was good news for Boelte. The day before
Stone’s earnings were announced, he began purchasing $527,000 in
the company’s stock. His tax data suggests it was the first and
only time he bought the company’s stock during the years for which
ProPublica has data. By the time he sold the shares two months later,
Boelte claimed $343,000 in profit, a 65% return.
Aside
from being Stone’s partner, there’s another reason Boelte could
have received insights about how the company was doing before the
public did. After seeing positive signs in its Cardona project, Stone
sold LLOG its stake in the Viosca Knoll well the two companies had
been working on together. Stone planned to use the sale proceeds to
continue developing its own projects, such as the Cardona wells. The
two sides concluded the sale in October, according to company
filings, but typically such negotiations take months, an expert said.
That suggests Boelte might have known about Stone shifting resources
before he bought shares.
In a detailed statement, Boelte said,
“I do not and have never traded on any material, non-public
information of competitors, business partners or others.” He went
on: “I did not draw any conclusion about Stone Energy’s
intentions for other specific investments one way or another, and I
had no discussions with Stone Energy regarding their intentions with
respect to other investments by Stone Energy.” His purchase of the
shares, he said, was motivated by his expectation that crude prices
were about to rise; based on that, he invested in “several energy
securities, including Stone Energy.”
Boelte said he quickly
sold half of the Stone shares, and held on to the remainder until
2021 (which is beyond the period covered by ProPublica’s data), and
that overall he lost money on the trades. “Any implication that I
was investing based upon advance knowledge,” Boelte said, “is
therefore clearly false.”
The board of Checkpoint Systems had
been quietly considering its “strategic” options for more than a
year. The New Jersey-based company, which makes anti-theft tags and
other inventory tracking devices for stores, was suffering as its
clients closed brick-and-mortar locations. By late 2015 and early
2016, Checkpoint’s board had made a list of potential acquirers,
and the company’s bankers began contacting them.
Talks heated
up with one potential buyer, CCL Industries, and Checkpoint gave the
company access to its confidential business and financial documents.
In January 2016, CCL told Checkpoint that it was going to ask its
board for approval to make the acquisition. CCL would offer $10.15
per share, a significant premium.
As this was happening, on
Jan. 14, Jim Sankey, the CEO of InVue, one of Checkpoint’s
competitors, bought $285,000 in shares of the company. He was just
getting started. Over the course of the next month, Sankey bought
more shares, $3.2 million in all. (ProPublica’s tax records show no
indication that he had traded shares of Checkpoint before.) A month
later, news broke that Checkpoint was getting acquired. Sankey made
$2.3 million in profit from his investment, a cherry on top of the
$25 million he made from his own company that year.
In an
interview, Sankey said that he did not know Checkpoint was going to
be acquired, and that his company was not among those approached by
Checkpoint about a possible sale or partnership. Sankey said he
bought shares because the price had been falling. Years earlier, in
2007, he had overseen a roughly $150 million sale of one of his
anti-theft product lines to Checkpoint. He knew that division’s
operating income at the time of the sale, and that it hadn’t lost
clients since. Based on that calculation, he believed the stock was
undervalued. “I built the business,” said Sankey, who remains CEO
of privately held InVue. “And I knew they couldn't screw it
up.”
Sankey said that investigators, he believes from the
SEC, interviewed the two brokers he had instructed to buy Checkpoint
shares. The investigators, he said, dropped the matter after his
brokers relayed his explanation for why he bought shares. He had no
proof, Sankey said, but “they took my word.”
For Barry
Wish, on one occasion, losing a contract to a competitor came with a
significant benefit. In the 1980s, Wish co-founded Ocwen, a
mortgage-servicing company, then helped steer the West Palm Beach,
Florida-based firm for decades on its board. Mortgage servicers
essentially act as brokers between lenders and homeowners, handling
billing, modifying loans for borrowers and carrying out
foreclosures.
In the years after the housing crash, Ocwen and
its competitors grew rapidly, as big banks auctioned off the loans
they were administering amid costly new regulations.
One of the
prize tranches — $215 billion in home mortgages from Bank of
America — was won by Wish’s rival, Nationstar, in January 2013.
The day the company’s deal with Bank of America was announced, its
stock shot up almost 17%, its biggest one-day gain since the company
had gone public almost a year earlier. According to reporting at the
time, Wish’s firm had been jockeying with Nationstar for the deal.
But losing wasn’t a total loss for Wish.
Less than three
weeks earlier, he had bought $600,000 of Nationstar shares. The day
the deal became public, Wish sold his shares, earning himself a
$157,000 profit. In a phone call with ProPublica, Wish said he didn’t
recall buying Nationstar shares. Asked if he ever traded competitors’
stock, he said, “No, not at all.” When told his tax data showed
he had, Wish said, “You might see it, but I don’t have any
recollection,” before hanging up.
Steven Grossman is another
executive who was fortunate enough to buy stock in a company just
before it was acquired. Grossman’s grandfather founded Southern
Container Corp., a corrugated packaging and containerboard
manufacturer based on Long Island. It was one of the largest private
companies of its kind, with more than half a billion dollars in
annual sales until Grossman sold it in 2008 for about $1 billion. He
stayed on after the sale, remaining on the payroll of the new owner,
Rock-Tenn, until 2013.
ProPublica’s data shows that during
his years in the industry, Grossman was also frequently trading the
stock of companies he competed with. He sold no company’s stock in
higher volumes than that of Temple-Inland, a Texas-based corrugated
packaging firm.
Many of Grossman’s trades were well-timed,
but few were as timely as his June 2011 purchases. On June 2, he
bought $223,000 of Temple-Inland shares. Then, on June 6, he bought
an additional $428,000.
On the very day of Grossman’s second
and larger purchase, after trading closed, another paper company
announced it was trying to acquire Temple-Inland. Executives had
secretly been negotiating the takeover for weeks.
When the
market opened the next day, Temple-Inland’s stock skyrocketed in
what was its biggest one-day increase in more than a decade. Grossman
quickly cashed out, making a 37% return in less than a week.
In
an interview, Grossman denied trading stock altogether. When told
that IRS data documented his trading activity, and asked about
Temple-Inland in particular, Grossman said, “I haven’t traded
stock since then.” The IRS data shows he continued to trade.
Grossman said that after he sold his company in 2008, he never worked
for the buyer, Rock-Tenn. But his tax data shows he was on
Rock-Tenn’s payroll through 2013. “They paid me but never used my
services,” Grossman said. He asserted that he did not know about
the acquisition talks involving Temple-Inland when he bought shares.
Asked what prompted him to buy that day, Grossman replied, “That
was 10 years ago.” With that, he hung up.
When an investor
sells stocks, bonds or other securities through a broker, the firm is
generally required to issue a tax form called a 1099-B, which details
several pieces of information about the transaction, including a
description of the asset sold, the proceeds from the sale and the
date the sale occurred. The brokerage provides a copy of the 1099-B
both to the investor and to the IRS. ProPublica’s universe of
trades was drawn from tens of millions of these records, part of a
larger set of records that formed the basis of ProPublica’s series
“The Secret IRS Files.”
ProPublica’s database does not
include a complete picture of all trades made by or for investors.
Investments made through a separate legal entity like a partnership,
for example, are not included. Additionally, 1099-B forms are
produced when an asset is sold, not when it is purchased. Many
records, however, did list the date the securities were acquired, so
ProPublica’s reporters were often able to see a portion of an
investor's purchasing activity. Securities that were purchased but
not sold until recently are not included in the data.
The
dataset spans roughly two decades. Trades from more recent years
generally include more information because disclosure requirements
have increased over the years. That additional detail allowed
ProPublica to better determine how successful the individuals in our
data were in the stock market. For stock bought before 2011, brokers
were required to report the date it was sold and the total proceeds
it generated but not the price paid.
These disclosure
changes also affected how certain types of trades appear in the data.
That includes short sales, in which an investor borrows shares of a
stock, sells the borrowed shares, then “closes” the transaction
by buying an equal number of shares to replace the borrowed stock at
what they hope is a lower price. The IRS previously required that
brokers issue a 1099-B disclosing only when someone entered into a
short sale and how big the position was, but not when they closed the
short. For shorts initiated after the disclosure changes in 2011, the
agency required brokers to submit information about the short being
closed, listing both the date it was closed and the overall profit,
but no longer required the date the short was entered into. By 2014,
options trades were also required to be reported in more
detail.
Sometimes it was straightforward to identify short
sales and options — for example, a field on the 1099-B form
described them as such. However, according to experts, the forms are
nonintuitive and brokers frequently fill them out incorrectly. To
determine whether the anomalous cases were indeed short sales,
ProPublica presented them to experts and the subjects themselves to
ascertain the nature of those trades.
To gauge how a stock’s
price changed after an investor purchased or sold shares on a given
date, ProPublica obtained a dataset outlining the price history for
stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq or the
American Stock Exchange. We combined that data with the records of
the trades documented in our IRS records. Reporters then compared the
closing price of a stock on the day a trade occurred to the closing
price after a number of different intervals of trading days (5, 10,
20, 60 or 120 days). Closing prices were used because brokers aren’t
required to report the share price at the moment the trade was made.
This approach mirrors a common method used by academic researchers
who study insider trading.
By calculating a stock’s change in
price after various time intervals, we could identify trades made
close to significant movements in a company’s share price. But
because the prices of some securities are much more volatile than
others, it was important to determine how anomalous those swings
were.
We compared the return from each individual trade to the
full distribution of returns for that stock: For example, a one-day
return of 20% was compared to all other one-day returns for that
stock over a certain period of time. We found several instances in
which the days executives traded in their competitors’ stock were
more opportune — if not the most opportune — over certain windows
of time. One executive, for example, sold more than $1 million worth
of shares in a competitor’s stock the day before the company had
its largest one-day price drop that year.
ProPublica also
examined what ties, if any, individuals had to the companies they
were trading, using interviews, news reports, SEC filings, tax
records, court records, social media and other avenues.
New
open-source, and free, public software let's any citizen get any
corrupt politician arrested. Any voter can use the software from the
comfort of their living room. The AI replicates itself (Like A benign
digital version of Covid) across the entire web.
Illegal
and corrupt Congressional insider trading tends to be something we
don't hear about until it's hit the big news networks and newspapers
as the SEC goes for the throat of the accused. By then,
unfortunately, those committing it have made their gains, usually in
the multi-millions of dollars, and the damage has been done to the
stock, its company, investors and the American Way.
Quite
frankly, the jail time assessed doesn't correct the damage done, and
the fines rarely aid the investors, or the voters, in getting their
money and their democracy back. Many of those hurt are Average Joe's
and Jill's who were just trying to save their retirement nest eggs.
Shame is the tool that works best on the corrupt!
These
crimes involve a Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris or Dianne Feinstein
investment banker husband using information, which was
not available to the public, buying and selling a company's stock in
an underhanded manner. It is particularly onerous when one of
those Senators buys Tesla, Google, Facebook or Solyndra stock, and
makes laws that only benefits Tesla, Solyndra, etc, while sabotaging
their competitor constituents. Because the dealings involved
are pretty much done on the sly, it's been difficult, until now, for
the governing body of the SEC to prove illegal insider trading,
unless one of the cohorts tattles on the others or their actions
become glaringly obvious. In some cases, a sharp mind around the
action may take notice and become what's called a whistle-blower.
Previously,
writes Andrew
Beattie of Investopedia: "...
insider trading is often difficult for the SEC to spot. Detecting it
involves a lot of conjecture and consideration of probabilities."
That was the 'old
days', though. Today,
the new AI software can bust through these scams like a hot knife
through butter!
With
this new open-source, free, public spy agency-class software,
detecting illegal insider trading is actually less complicated than
it sounds.
To
the eyes of this new super-powerful AI observer server bot and
peer-to-peer databases, it is easy work.
You, the
citizen, just type the politician or agency employee name into a
field and hit the "analyze" button. A few minutes
later you receive a multi-page PDF report similar to an FBI report on
the target. You can either research the subject in more detail or
send copies of the report to the FBI, GAO, OSC, SEC or other
enforcement group.
The
software is an automated AI temporal matching system which includes
24/7 analysis of all stock trades involving politicians to its
information source, politician finances, communications and policy
participators. it uses some of the same software code used by the
CERN mega-research center in Switzerland.
The
technology Core Evaluation Points:
Analyst
estimates - these come from what an analyst estimates that a
company's quarterly or annual earnings will be. They are important
because they help approximate the fair value of an entity, which
basically establishes it price on the stock exchange.
Share
volume - this reflects the quantity of shares that can be traded
over a certain period of time. There are buyers and there are
sellers, and the transactions that take place between them
contribute to total volume.
One
Way The AI Detects Congressional Insider Trades
Metricized
signs of illegal insider trading occur when trades occur that break
out of the historical pattern of share volume traded compared to
beneficiary participation's of those connected to company and
political entity. Another clue of the illegal insider trading is when
a lot of trading goes on right before earnings announcements. That
tends to be a sign that someone already knows what the announcement
is going to indicate, and it's an obvious violation. One module of
the new software hunts these trends around-the-clock in an unmanned
manner like a detective who never needs to sleep.
The
software red alerts are issued when trades are linked closer to the
actual earnings and politicians bills instead of what the predicted
earnings were. In a corruption case, it's clear the trades -
especially made by politicians close to the company - stemmed from
information that was not readily available to the general public.
In
other words, at the time an insider makes a trade, the trade has a
stronger relationship to earnings guidance rather than to earnings
results achieved.
Part
Of The Insider Trading Detection AI Uses 'Dynamic Time Warping (DTW)'
In
econometrics, which is a concept frequently used by quantitative
analysts to evaluate stock market prices, dynamic time warping (DTW)
is an algorithm that can be used for measuring similarity between two
data sequences by calculating an optimal match between the two. This
sequence "matching" method is often used in time series
classification to properly "line things up."
The
method, coupled with AI machine learning ensemble methods, can
provide a clear path between the trades made by insiders and public
data used to make the trades.
This
is a product of artificial intelligence that has been expanded by
Indexer, Splunk, Palantir and other firms fast becoming experts in
products that can be used to advance the art of manipulating
political and social trends in business and markets by using social
media, financial data and news stories. The new software process has
taken that sort of approach to the next level and targeted every
member of Congress, their staff, family and friends. The first
emphasis is on California and Washington, DC public figures.
In a
hypothetical example, a group of executives failed to trade by
industry standards by leveraging material non-public information and
policy manipulation. Although consensus estimates called for higher
commodity prices at the end of 2015, it appears key executives traded
for their personal accounts as a result of the forecast provided by a
specialist system within the firm that was adept at predicting prices
alongside lobbyist manipulations. Flash-boy trading is now dirtier
and powered by Google-class server systems.
In
the hypothetical scenario the software aggregates executive trades in
2014 and 2015 and finds a strong link between buys and sells of
executive stock options, which line up with material non-public
estimates of commodity prices that were provided by the specialist
system.
For
example, in a "Exec Sell and Exec Buys" graph, a green line
represents sells, while a black line represents buys. In the
corresponding period, one finds a red line represents unrevised
prices provided by the specialist system, and green line represents
consensus estimates.
During
Q1-2014, there was $28M in purchases of executive stock options,
while in Q2-2014, there was $25M in sales of executive stock options.
The specialist system called for Q3-2014 commodity prices to make a
precipitous decline going into the end of 2014. Remember, under this
scenario, no revisions were made to the specialist systems' price
forecast. In this example, executives were afforded a significant
advantage using price predictions from the specialist system.
In a
final bullet chart, there was a dynamic time warping distance between
trades and consensus estimates of 7.23, but this distance is only
2.19 when comparing specialist system estimates and executive trades.
Please note, the closer the distance score is to zero, the more
similar the trades are to the estimates they are measured against.
We
have applied this process to companies well-known for influence
buying like, Google, Tesla and Facebook
It's
obvious that the tech executives involved did not follow industry
standards in their actions and make public the "insider"
information they had access to prior to the trades they made. The
lobbyists they hired promoted this rigged trend and paid off Senators
with perks. These are the kind of violations the SEC and other
governing bodies can look to in attempting to protect the trading
public and the integrity of financial marketplaces. Artificial
intelligence tools are a major factor in assisting the tracking of
insider trading. Eric Schmidt, of Google, does not look good under
such circumspection.
"Every
facet of our everyday lives has been impacted, infiltrated and
greatly influenced by artificial intelligence technologies,"
says Vernon A. McKinley, a multi-jurisdictional attorney, based in
Atlanta. "In fact, the U.S. government and its multiple agencies
have developed specialized intelligence units to detect, track,
analyze and prosecute those unscrupulous individuals seeking to
profit from the use of such tools, specifically in the financial
industry, and to protect the integrity and strength of the U.S.
economy and its investors." Now these tools are being turned
against the corrupt!
The
public can now detect trading anomalies in financial situations using
this artificial intelligence software on their desktop computers. No
public official will ever be able to do these kinds of corruptions,
again, without getting caught.
This
approach has already had an impact on how political insiders trade on
Wall Street and in financial markets around the world.
This
technology can end this corruption in America forever!
A
module of the software uses data from The Center for Responsive
Politics, ICIJ Panama Leaks records, Swiss Leaks records and FEC
files to reveal covert routes. Jerry Brown, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy
Pelosi, Kamala Harris and other famous California politicians own
part of Tesla Motors, Facebook, Google, Netflix, YouTube and other
companies they helped get government money for. All of their
competing constituents have suffered for it or been put out of
business by exclusive deals that only Tesla Motors, Facebook, Google,
Netflix and YouTube got. That is a crime!
A
large volume of forensic research proves that Silicon Valley Cartel
tech firms receive benefits from politicians and politicians,at the
same time, benefit from these firms.
This
evidence on the exchange of benefits between politicians and firms
proves an agreement between the politicians and the companies. This
agreement, however, cannot be in the form of a written contract as
writing direct fee-for-service contracts between a politician and a
firm is considered bribery (Krozner and Stratmann 1998; 2000). In
addition, either party to this agreement might renege on its promise
and the other party cannot resort to the courts.
Procon.org,
for example, reports: “Less than two months after ascending to the
United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than$50,000 worth of
stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included
some of his biggest political donors. One of the companies was a
biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian
flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about$5,000 of its shares,
Mr. Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal
spending to battle the disease. The most recent financial disclosure
form for Mr. Obama . . . shows that he bought more than $50,000 in
stock in a satellite communications businesswhose principal backers .
. . had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.”
(http://insidertrading.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=1580#obamaa.
See more examples from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington (CREW) report (2009).)
The literature and our
eye-witness experience proves that politically-connected Silicon
Valley tech firms monthly obtain economic favors, such as securing
favorable legislation, special tax exemptions, having preferential
access to finance, receiving government contracts, or help in dealing
with regulatory agencies. The evidence proves that Google's
support,for example, can help in winning elections. For example,
firms can vary the number of people they employ, coordinate the
opening and closing of plants, and increase their lending activity in
election years in order to help incumbent politicians get re-elected.
(SeeRoberts 1990; Snyder 1990; Langbein and Lotwis 1990; Durden,
Shorgen, and Silberman 1991; Stratmann 1991, 1995, and 1998; Fisman
2001;Johnson and Mitton 2003; Ansolabehere, Snyder, and Ueda 2004;
Sapienza 2004, Dinç 2005; Khwaja and Mian 2005; Bertrand,
Kramarz,Schoar, and Thesmar 2006; Faccio 2006; Faccio, Masulis, and
McConnell 2006; Jayachandran 2006; Leuz and Oberholzer-Gee 2006;
Claessens,Feijen, Laeven 2008; Desai and
Olofsgard 2008; Ramanna
2008;Goldman, Rocholl, and So 2008, 2009; Cole 2009; Cooper, Gulen,
and Ovtchinnikov 2009; Correia 2009; Ramanna and Roychowdhury
2010;Benmelech and Moskowitz 2010.)
The
software can see that the share ownership of politicians serves as a
mechanism to quid-pro-quo their relationships with big tech firms, is
as follows:The ownership of politicians plays multiple distinct (but
not necessarily independent) roles; one that relies upon the amount
of ownership and one that does not. First, as investors in firms,
politicians tie their own interests to those of the firm.
Thus,harming (benefiting) the firm means harming (benefiting) the
politician and vice versa. By owning a firm's stock, politicians
commit their personal wealth to the firm and reduce a firm’s
uncertainty with regard to their actions toward the firm. This
will,in turn, enhance the firm's incentive to support the
politician-owner during both current and future elections in order to
prolong the incumbency period for as long as possible. Firms have
their lobbyists push to be able to know the amount of ownership
likely to be material to politicians. This knowledge, in turn,
enables them to judge whether the politician’s interest is aligned
with the firm’s interest and optimize quid-pro-quo.
The
Political Action Committee (PAC) contribution of firms (which is a
direct measure of benefits flowing from firms to politicians) is a
significant determinant of ownership allocations by members of
Congress. The ownership of Congress members in firms that contribute
to their election campaigns is roughly 32.8% higher than their
ownership in noncontributing firms even after accounting for factors
that are associated with both ownership and contribution (such as
familiarity, proximity and investor recognition). Democratic members
invest more (less) in firms that favor, i.e., contribute more to, the
Democratic Party. Politicians are partisan investors.
The
committee assignments of politicians is a proxy for whether their
relations with firms are enforced (Krozner and Stratmann
1998).Silicon Valley tech firms like Facebook, Tesla and Google
obtain private benefits out of their mutual relations with
politicians. When the strength of the association between ownership
and contributions at the firm level increases, the provision of
government contracts to those firms increases.
Members
of Congress, candidates for federal office, senior congressional
staff, nominees for executive branch positions, Cabinet members, the
President and Vice President, and Supreme Court justices are required
by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to file annual reports
disclosing their income, assets, liabilities, and other relevant
details about their personal finances.
Personal
financial disclosure forms are filed annually by May 15 and cover the
preceding calendar year. The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP)
collected the 2004–2007 reports for Congress members from the
Senate Office of Public Records and the Office of the Clerkof the
House. The Center then scanned the reports as digital images,
classified the politicians’ investments into categories including
stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, and built a database accessible via
a web query.
Using
CRP's data, you can use the software to collect the shares in S&P
500 firms held by members of Congress between 2004 and 2007, for
example.You can collect the stock ownership data for every firm that
joined the S&P 500 Index any time between January 2004 and April
2009;regardless of when it joined the index, and the software
can obtain all the available stock ownership data for that firm
between 2004 and2007. Likewise, if a firm dropped out of the index at
any time during 2004–2008, the software, nevertheless, will retain
the firm in a sample for the target period. As such, the sample would
include stocks in hundreds of unique firms owned by politicians
between 2004 and 2007, for example.
Politicians
are required to report only those stocks whose value exceeds $1,000
at the end of the calendar year or that produce more than $200 in
income. They are CURRENTLY not required to report the exact value of
the holding, but instead must simply check a box corresponding to the
value range into which the asset falls. The CRP then undertakes
additional research to determine the exact values of these stocks.
When the Center makes these determinations, it reports them instead
of the ranges and I use these values in my study. When only the range
is available, you should use its midpoint as the holding's value. You
would, thus have data on the stock holdings of hundreds politicians
for that time period.
Using
the software, you can search for all Political Action Committees
(PACs) associated with tech firms. It then collects data on each
contribution these PACs made to candidates (both the winners and
losers) running for the Senate and House elections. Tricky corrupt
Silicon Valley firms establish several PACs, each in a different
location, and each of these PACs can contribute to the same
candidate. In such cases, the software would total, for each
candidate, every contribution he or she received from PACs affiliated
with the same firm. To parallel the investment data sample period,
for example, the software collects every contribution made from the
2003–2004 cycle up to and including the 2007–2008 cycle. Many
Silicon Valley tech firms use deeply covert Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie,
BlackCube, Psyops-type service to make very hidden additional payola
payments to California politicians.
For
sources, for example, the software collects government contract data
from Eagle Eye Publishers, Inc., one of the leading commercial
providers of Federal procurement and grant business intelligence and
http://www.usaspending.org. Eagle Eye collects its contract data from
Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation (FPDS-NG), the
contract data collection and dissemination system administered by the
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). FPDS-NG provides data on
procurement contracts awarded by the U.S. Government. When these
contracts are awarded to company subsidiaries, Eagle Eye searches for
the names of their parent companies and assigns each subsidiary to
its appropriate parent. The software collects both the number and
aggregate value of government contracts that were awarded to sample
firms between 2004 and 2007 in this example time-frame..
The
software reveals, for example, that Representative Maxine Waters
(D-CA) is a ten-term member of Congress and a senior member of the
House Financial Services Committee. She arranged a meeting between
the Department of Treasury and One United Bank, a company with close
financial ties to Ms. Waters, involving both investments and
contributions.
“In
September 2008, Rep. Waters asked then-Secretary of the Treasury
Henry Paulson to hold a meeting for minority-owned banks that had
suffered from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac losses.
The
Treasury Department complied and held a session with approximately a
dozen senior banking regulators, representatives from minority-owned
banks, and their trade association. Officials of One United Bank,
oneof the largest black-owned banks in the country that has close
ties to Rep. Waters, attended the meeting along with Rep. Waters’
chiefof staff. Kevin Cohee, chief executive officer of One United,
used the meeting as an opportunity to ask for bailout funds.
. .
. Former Bush White House officials stated they were surprised when
One United Officials asked for bailout funds. . . . In December2008,
Rep. Waters intervened again, asking Treasury to host another meeting
to ensure minority-owned banks received part of the $700billion
allocated under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. . . . Within two
weeks, on December 19, 2008, One United secured $12.1million in
bailout funds. . . . This was not the first time Rep. Waters used her
position to advance the interests of the bank. Rep.Waters’ spouse,
Sidney Williams, became a shareholder in One United in 2001, when it
was known as the Boston Bank of Commerce. In 2002,Boston Bank of
Commerce tried to purchase Family Savings, a minority-owned bank in
Los Angeles. Instead, Family Savings turned to a bank in Illinois.
Rep. Waters tried to block the merger by contacting regulators at the
FDIC. She publicly stated she did not want a major white bank to
acquire a minority-owned bank.
When
her efforts with the FDIC proved fruitless, Rep. Waters began a
public pressure campaign with other community leaders.
Ultimately,when Family Savings changed direction and allowed Boston
Bank of Commerce to submit a winning bid, Rep. Waters received credit
for the merger. The combined banks were renamed One United. . . . In
March 2004, she acquired One United stock worth between $250,001
and$500,000, and Mr. Williams purchased two sets of stock, each worth
between $250,001 and $500,000. In September 2004, Rep. Waters sold
her stock in One United and her husband sold a portion of his. That
same year, Mr. Williams joined the bank’s board. . . . One United
Chief Executive Kevin Cohee and President Teri Williams Cohee have
donated a total of $8,000 to Rep. Waters’ campaign committee. . .
.On October 27, 2009, less than two months before One United received
a $12 million bailout, the bank received a cease-and-desist order
from the FDIC and bank regulatory officials in Massachusetts for poor
lending practices and excessive executive compensation . . . the bank
provided excessive perks to its executives, including paying for Mr.
Cohee’s use of a $6.4 million mansion . . .” (Crew report
2009,pp. 123–125)
Thanks
to Crony quid-pro-quo revelations by an earlier version of the
software, you can also see that Fisker Automotive, Inc.'s $529
Million U.S. Taxpayer Loan Approval by the Department of Energy was
dirty. Fisker Automotive's Chief Operating Officer Bernhard Koehler
pleaded with the Department of Energy in a panicked Saturday midnight
hour email to receive a $529 million loan as the company was 2 weeks
from Chapter 7 liquidation, that it was laying off most of its
employees, that no private sector investors would fund the company
without DOE guarantees, and that Fisker was unable to raise any
further equity funding from independent private-sector investors
given the company's financial condition.These statements were made to
a Loan Officer at the DOE . No private sector Loan underwriting
(approval) committee would ever grant a low interest loan to a
desperate buyer that had just confessed it was in a state of
insolvency and was about to layoff most of its staff. Yet within a
few weeks the DOE would approve a $529 Million Credit Facility to
Fisker. Despite the DOE Loan Officer official's sworn testimony at
April 24th's House Oversight Committee that the DOE used "same
private sector underwriting standards when approving Fisker and other
approved Taxpayer Funded Loans" - likely perjury based in
documents.
In a
'U.S. GOVERNMENT CONFIDENTIAL EMAIL': FISKER AUTOMOTIVE: August 2009:
Co-Founder Bernhard Koehler emails U.S. Dept. of Energy Loan Officer
in Sat. midnight Panic admitting VC Firms all declined to invest, and
company is out of cash. Weeks later the U.S.Department of Energy
approves $529M U.S. Taxpayer Funded Loans to FISKER. NO PRIVATE
SECTOR Lender would every authorize a Loan for even $5 Million let
alone $529 Million after receiving this email stating private sector
investors had examined the company and declined equity investments,
that they might loan money as more secure Debt, and the Chief
Operating Officer of the company further stating that the borrower is
totally insolvent. (Weeks after this email the U.S. Federal
Government Dept. of Energy Loan Committee Approves Fisker Automotive
as a credit-worthy borrow for $529 Million in U.S. Taxpayer Funded
Loans). Fisker got the cash because President Obama said to "give
it to them" in order to please his campaign financiers.
The
same thing happened with Tesla Motors. Elon Musk and Tesla Motors
were broke when DOE gave them the money.
PrivCo
CEO Sam Hamadeh stated in an official statement: “The documents
obtained by PrivCo paint a picture of how an insolvent,unproven
automaker received $192 million in taxpayer funding. The Department
of Energy made a loan that no rational lender would have made. This
loan was the equivalent of staying execution on a company that was
terminally ill to begin with." Tesla and Fisker could not
have been taxpayer funded unless bribes and criminal quid-pro-quo was
underway by President Obama and the U.S. Senator insider traders.
XP
Vehicle's had been the first to initiate negotiations to retask the
NUMMI plant in Fremont, California after Elon Musk went on the record
saying the NUMMI Plant was worthless to Tesla. Dianne Feinstein's
chief of staff then threatened XP Vehicles and warnedthem to cease
action on NUMMI. Shortly thereafter, Tesla announced they had
acquired the NUMMI plant which Dianne Feinstein's family owned a
business interest and she had arranged for Tesla to get funding and
presided at the Tesla re-opening of the NUMMI plant.
Per
Christine Lakatos
2014 began with a
bang: “Obama’s
Second Term Is All About Climate Change.” New
York Magazine, in
their reporting, claimed that the evidence of this has to do with
President Obama’s appointment of John Kerry(“longtime climate
obsessive”) as Secretary of State, as well as other key green
appointees.
Kerry,
by the way, while recently in Indonesia, blasted climate change
deniers, warning, “Climate change may be the world’s
‘mostfearsome’ weapon of mass destruction and urgent action is
needed to combat it,” wrote
CBC News Canada.
This
scare tactic –– now adding to the long list of liberal crap,
which includes ludicrous allegations that climate change will
lead to “an orgy of killing, looting, rape and burglary”
(just ask James Delingpole) –– surfaced just weeks afterPresident
Obama’s State of the Union address (January 28, 2014) where he
emphatically declared
that the climate change debate is over.
But
the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our
children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we didall we
could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of
energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.
A
claim that many Americans, including Washington
Post columnist
Charles Krauthammer, find “absurd”
–– with even
co-founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore, last month, stating
to members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
thatthere is no scientific proof of man-made climate change.
The
president, during his speech, which was a “call
to action” with or without Congress, also pumped
up his “all the above” energy strategy, asserting that it was
working: “America is closer to energy independence.” Later,
Mr.Obama claimed that his energy policy “was creating jobs and
leading to a cleaner, safer planet.”
While
Marita Noon (energy expert and Towhall.com columnist)
has continually tackled the president’s so-called
“energyindependence” assertion, together we have debunked the
green jobs hype and deception many times, including in my recent
study on theObama-backed
green energy failures.
Moreover,
a year ago, we blew the lid off of Climate
Hawk Kerry and his part in green corruption. What’s most
disingenuous is that while Kerry preaches “global warming doom
andgloom,” his “government carbon footprint” is enormous
— with no end in sight. (And who’s tracking his personal
carbonfootprint?) Worse, Kerry played a part in crafting President
Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill, which was a piece of legislation that
allowed himto create a financial
footprint inside this
scandal as well. This includes timely
green energy investments with the Big VC firm Kleiner Perkins (where
“climate billionaires” John Doerrand Al Gore are partners) that
will be mentioned many times in this post, including the fact that
this firm was a huge winner from theGreen Bank of Obama.
The
massive spending bill, commonly known as the economic stimulus
package, which was signed
into law five years ago, was marketed as a means to save our
economy from the brink of disaster and create American jobs. If
youcaught Michelle Malkin’s tribute
to the so-called (failed) Recovery Act, you’ll discover, “Theactual
cost of the $800 billion pork-laden stimulus has ballooned to nearly
$2
trillion.” Even Speaker of the House John Boehner weighed
in, ”The ‘stimulus’ has turned out to be a classic case of
big promises and big spending with little results …”
Tucked
inside was approximately $100 billion earmarked for renewable energy,
which became
“a special-interest feeding frenzy.”
Obama’s
Agenda: Climate change by executive fiat & billions more of
taxpayer cash
Obama
has continually
pledged during his second term, that he will be “governing
unilaterally, by executive order and by regulatory mandate,” warned
a Washington Times
reporter –– thus his weapons
of warfare are his “pen and phone.” Forget about the
Constitution and its check and balances.
Even
as those on the Right are up in arms over in the president’s
excessive
use (and abuse) of executive power, leading Democrats are
applauding
this move and pushing for more. Yet if we go back in time to
2008, we find that then-candidate Obama played a different
tune,slamming
President Bush’s use of executive action.
The
author of the New York
Magazine piece
also noted that other than Secretary of State John Kerry,
severalObama second-term moves signal the high priority he assigns
the issue of climate change: “This is true not only of the figures
Obama hasappointed to posts that inherently concern climate change,
like his green
appointees to run the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and
the Department of Energy [DOE], but also to general
politicaladvisors, like Denis McDonough and John Podesta, both
committed environmentalists who will drive Obama’s climate focus”
––both McDonough and Podesta from the left-wing think tank,
Center for American Progress (CAP), and the focus of this Green
Corruption File.
Podesta,
who in November 2013, was
spotted at a fundraising event for Hillary Clinton, according
to the Washington
Post, “Is expected
to stay with the Obama administration for a just a year, freeing him
to join thecampaign of Mrs. Clinton if she runs for president in
2016.” It turns out that McDonough was the one that brokered his
“executivepower gig,” of which “Podesta’s portfolio would be
broad and would include climate-change issues and executive actions,
as well asthe troubled health-care law,” reported
the Washington Post.
As
Kerry and Obama continue their campaign of “climate disaster on the
horizon,” the strategic move
in adding Podesta as White House counselor had already signaled
anaggressive approach to their radical, expensive and deceptive green
energy agenda. In fact, Podesta began is his role inside the
ObamaWhite House by stirring up the liberal base, when in a profile
published on December 17, 2013 by POLITICO, “Podesta is quoted
comparing Republicans to the infamous cult led by Jim Jones, who
wasresponsible for the 1978 cyanide poisoning of more than 900 of his
followers in Guyana…” –– only to later apologize
via twitter of all places.
Now
labeled
“climate change and energy transformation agenda,” Obama and
hisminions have been, and continue to push through their radical
views with mandates,
regulations
and legislation, which benefits special interest groups and the
Obamaadministration’s green cronies, while adversely affecting
American families. Even the non-partisan organization Reason.com,
too, seesthe dire
reality here: “Obama’s [Climate Five-Year] plan ambitiously
seeks to control nearly every aspect of how Americans produce
andconsume energy.” One of those is directing the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) “to work expeditiously to complete
carbonpollution standards for both new and existing power plants.”
Using
the iron fist of the EPA –– a key department in Obama’s “war
on energy” known for its abuse of
power –– the president also tried to force refiners to
produce cellulosic biofuels. However, as
noted by Political Outcast, “The standards set were completely
unrealistic and unattainable.” On the horizon are new green
rules for trucks, buses and other heavy-duty vehicles, as well as
whatever maneuvers
the White House deems suited for their “green
energy revolution.”
Additionally,
whether we like it or not, this clean-energy mission is funded by
taxpayers –– President Obama’s “save the planetslush fund.”
A March 2012 report
by the Brookings Institute places the Obama administrations’
“totalgovernment spending (both stimulus and non-stimulus) on green
initiatives at $150
billion through 2014. But that’s not enough to save the planet.
Last month, the president began
pushing for a $1 billion taxpayer-funded program “to help
communities across the country prepare for the effects of
climatechange” –– AKA the climate resilience fund. This program
is separate from the “Climate
Action Plan” that the president introduced in June 2013, which
also calls for releasing more
taxpayer money ($8 billion from
the DOE Loan Guarantee Program).
Furthermore,
Obama’s DOE is attempting
to establish a new renewable energy section (under the DOE Loan
Guarantee Program), for grid-integrated green power projects ––with
the plan of spending anywhere from $1.5 billion to as much as $4
billion of taxpayer money. The Obama administration is alsorestarting
the DOE’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM),
which is also part of the DOE Loan Guarantee Program –– with
morethan $15 billion in remaining authority.
This
is the same Energy Department program which the Green Corruption
Files has exposed many times how, in the process of dolingout $34
billion of taxpayer money, at least 90 percent of the recipients have
meaningful
politically connections (bundlers, top donors, fundraisers, etc) to
the president and otherhigh-ranking Democrats –– in many cases,
to both. While the DOE will have you believe that these loans were
based on “merit,” thekicker is that in March 2012, the House
Oversight and Government Reform committee unleashed
a damaging report revealing that the stimulus-created 1705
section of the DOE’s Loan Program had doled out in excess of
$16billion to 26 projects, of which 22 of the loans were rated “Junk”
grade due to their poor credit quality. “The remaining ended up
onlowest end of the investment grade of categories, giving the DOE’s
1705 loan portfolio an overall average of BB-.”
So,
it’s no wonder that this loan program fostered big alternative
energy losers such as Solyndra, Beacon Power, Abound Solar,
Vehicle Production Group, and Fisker Automotive, flushing billions
oftax dollars down the toilet –– with billions more still at
risk. Yet, the loan program is not the only one place you’ll find
thepresident’s “cleantech” losers. In January, I released my
new study, documenting
32 Obama-backed green energy failures, while tracking the
financiallytroubled, and even those, ironically, having environmental
issues as well –– over 30 and counting.
Besides
the fact that the Energy Department continues
to subsidize green energy, there are also many stimulus-created
programs that have been extended and are still dishing out
“thegreen.” One of the largest is the 1603
Grant Program, which to date has awarded over $20 billion of
tax-free cash. The Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit
program(48C
Program), which was funded by $2.3 billion, just unleashed Phase
II. The currently passed 1,000-page trillion-dollar
farm bill will continue to fund renewable energy programs such as
the Biorefinery Assistance Program, administered by the
U.S.Department of Agriculture’s (USDA). The USDA, with $1.02
billion in loan power, along with $600 million stimulus funds from
the EnergyDepartment and a $132 million DOE stimulus loan, used
taxpayer money to fund 31 “not so shovel-ready” risky projects
(also politicallyconnected) –– of which last time I checked
(August 2013), about a third were having issues.
Podesta
Power
Over
the course of unleashing this scandal, I’ve hinted that CAP is a
dark, driving force behind President Obama’s massive greenenergy
scheme –– roles that range from legitimate to shady lobbying
practices, to the fact that numerous CAP “fellows” wereat the
helm of the green energy deal making, holding key positions inside
the Obama White House, his Green Team, and his EnergyDepartment.
Today’s
Green Corruption File will connect the dots as to Center for American
Progress’ part in this scam, while shedding light onold and new
data. As I progress,
I’ll expose its alternative energy advocacy as well as its funders
–– corporatedonors that were kept secret until their release in
late 2013 –– with
those in the renewable energy business (at least 17)cashing in at the
Green Bank of Obama.
Let’s
go back in time when Podesta –– former chief of staff to
President Bill Clinton –– was infamous
for what is dubbed “Project
Podesta“: “This was a system that enabled the Clintons to
push through unpopular policies that neither Congress nor theAmerican
people wanted. Its implementation marked a dramatic tilt in the
balance of power, giving the executive branch an unprecedentedability
to force its will on the legislative branch,” documented
DiscoverTheNetworks.com.
Most
know that in 2003, Podesta founded CAP, which as mentioned, is
organization funded by billionaire George Soros, who has a massive
footprint inside this green corruption scandal. He then served as
the organization’s president and CEO, of which it was reported,
“Podesta was hand-picked for the job by CAP co-founders Soros
andMorton H. Halperin.”
In
2008 and early 2009, Podesta, an Obama bundler, while still at CAP,
ran
Obama’s transition team as the co-chair along
side Valerie Jarrett and Peter
Rouse. Meanwhile by 2011, Podesta stepped down from his CEO role
and became
the Chair of CAP and the CAP Action Fund –– only to leave CAP
and join the White House at the end of 2013 in his new role asObama’s
“executive
power czar.”
But
if you go back to right after the Republican 2010-midterm victory,
Podesta already had a plan: “The president should bypassCongress
and wield the executive powers of his office,” reported
Bloomberg last December. In fact, “Podesta had compiled 47 pages
ofproposals for unilateral action on issues from immigration to solar
energy.” Podesta even wrote
the foreword for that CAP
report “on how
the president could use his executive authority to advance a
progressive agenda, including actions tounilaterally force the U.S.
economy to become greener.”
Furthermore,
Podesta has served as an Independent Advisory Council member
of the notoriously corrupt community organization ACORN
.
Podesta was also on the board of the Apollo Alliance as late as
2011.While I’ve unleashed the Apollo Alliance (now BlueGreen
Alliance) and their
part inside this massive clean-energy scam, I’ll briefly touch
uponthem again today. But what’s key here is that Apollo is another
Soros-funded left-wing organization, who along with its “green
jobs radical network,” exerts powerful influence on the views
and policies of the Obama administration –– and they too
wereinvolved in drafting the 2009-Recovery Act.
CAP’s
Left-wing Billionaire George Soros: Obama’s “agent of green”
Meanwhile,
Soros is one of the 2009
stimulus authors that I
had covered in October 2013: Those individuals and groups that
were involved in crafting the clean-energy sector of the 2009
Recovery Act, and who ultimately financially benefited directly
(and/or their invested firms, family or friends) from the $100billion
that was
earmarked for renewable energy.
According
to Peter Schweizer’s blockbuster 2011 bestseller Throw
Them All Out:
Billionaire
George Soros gave advice and direction on how President Obama should
allocate so-called “stimulus” money in aseries of regular private
meetings and consultations with White House senior advisers even as
Soros was making investments in areasaffected by the stimulus
program.
While
we know that early on, Soros
had visited the White House on at least five occasions since
Barack Obama became president, possibly more, Schweizer
givesspecifics, “Mr. Soros met
with Mr. Obama’s top economist, [Larry Summers –– also a
CAP fellow] on February 25, 2009 and twice more with senior
officialsin the Old Executive Office Building on March 24th and 25th
as the stimulus plan was being crafted. Later, Mr. Soros also
participatedin discussions on financial reform.”
As
documented by Schweizer, “In the first quarter of 2009, Mr.
Soros went on a stock-buying spree in companies that ultimately
benefited from the federal stimulus,” including twelve
alternativeenergy and utility companies. Moreover, if we add in other
Soros green energy investments that bagged “green” funds, we
canconfirm that this Soros is connected to at least $11 billion from
the Green Bank of Obama, the majority from the 2009-Recovery Act.
Due
to the fact that Soros is a well-known donor to CAP, here’s a sneak
peek of what I personally tracked in my March
2013 Green Corruption File, exposing how this left-wing
billionaire not only bankrolled Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns,but
cashed in on the stimulus bill that he helped craft. Interestingly,
four of these companies are also CAP corporate donors(marked with an
asterisks), which will be detailed later.
Brookfield
Asset Management (BAM):
As documented in the March 20, 2012 House Oversight report
on the DOE’s disastrous loan program, “George Soros and Martin
J. Whitman, both prominent Democratic donors, are both heavily
invested in Brookfield.” In September 2011, The Granite Reliable
wind project was
awarded $168.9 stimulus loan, which is owned BAM. Then on May
23, 2012, they also snagged a $56 million 1603
stimulus grant for “wind in New Hampshire.” While there are
additional
ties to this wind deal that I’ll highlight later when I get to
Heather Podesta (super lobbyists sister-in-law of John Podesta),
whose firm Heather
Podesta & Partners, from 2009 until 2012, served as
lobbyists
for BAM.
First
Solar*: Through
various fund, and as early as 2007, Soros invested in First Solar ––
the big solar company that is tied to $3 billion of the 1703 DOE
stimulus loans, including one project that was sold to NRG Energy ––
another Soros timely investment.
SolarCity:
In February 2012, the Private equity firm Silver Lake Kraftwerk
invested
in SolarCity –– whereas in early 2011, Silver Lake had
launched a clean energy fund in collaboration with billionaire
Soros and Cathy Zoi (former DOE Insider). SolarCity,which will be
detailed later, so far (and since 2009) has been subsidized with
“green” through various stimulus funds, grants and federal tax
breaks at the tune of $514 million.
Soros’
Twelve “Stimulus” Green Energy Stock-Buying Spree:
NRG
Energy and its subsidiaries:
Initially won $5.2 billion in 1705 stimulus loans for four projects
and at least 65 grants that total over $363 million of taxpayer
money with 37 unaccounted for. Plus much more green energy funds
through various alliances.
American
Electric Power (AEP)*:
at least four stimulus grants totaling $740 million. Plus, more
detailed later.
Ameren:
five stimulus grants totaling about $672.5 million
FirstEnergy
Solutions:
at least two stimulus grants totaling just over $71 million. No cash
that I could find for BioFuel Energy benefited when the EPA
announced a regulation on ethanol.
Constellation*,
an Exelon Company: at least one grant worth $200 million stimulus
grants and Constellation is one of the most prolific providers of
green energy to federally owned facilities.
Covanta
Energy*:
unclear as to how many green government subsidies or the exact
dollar amount, but obviously Covanta stands to benefit from the NAT
GAS Act if it comes to light again. And what about those
Congressional
earmarks Schweizer found?
Edison
International:
at least two stimulus grants worth $64.6 million, and I’m sure
there are more…
Entergy:
I’ve only tracked two small stimulus grants, which add up to close
to $10 million
PPL
Corporation:
I found one stimulus grant at $19 million
PSEG:
one stimulus grant for $76 million.
Powerspan
Clean Energy Technology:
one large stimulus grant worth $100 million
Mr.
& Mrs. Podesta the Super Lobbyists: Strike “green” gold
In
my June
2013 Green Corruption File, I briefly addressed John Podesta, but
more so profiled his brother, Tony Podesta –– dubbed
“TheLobbyist” by Newsweek,
and the founder and Chairman at the Podesta Group, which he started
with his brother John in 1987.
Even
though news
hit in early 2013, that Heather and Tony Podesta, the married
super lobbyists separated, they are both (via different firms) tiedto
numerous Obama-backed clean-energy deals.
As
documented
by the Center for Responsive Politics, you’ll find that the
Podesta Group‘s
lobbying income went from $16,070,000 in 2008 to $25,780,000 in
2009,and has since significantly increased. Their client lists (past
and present) includes large corporations such as Bank of America,
BPAmerica, and General Electric (GE aviation), General Motors, and
Google (Computers/Internet) –– all in the green energy
business,with BofA, GE and Google also CAP donors that won green
energy funds from the Obama administration.
CH2M
Hill
Nevertheless,
there are quite a few others, of which in
2009, the Podesta Group took on as clients that stand out ––
those that ultimately won a significant amount of stimulus
funds,starting with CH2M Hill that received
$1.3 billion for the clean up at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
Thedetails on this special stimulus earmark can be found in my June
2013 “Nuclear
Crimes and Misdemeanors” story, which highlights not only the
cronyism and corruption, but the fact that in June 2013, CBS
Newsreported
that this costly project has been plagued with problems, “delaysand
billions over budget.”
SolarReserve
SolarReserve
got special treatment from the Department of Interior (DOI) for their
Crescent
Dunes Solar Energy Project located in Tonopah, Nevada, which
received a $737
million DOE stimulus loan. SolarReserve also snagged stimulus
grants, yet the amount is unknown. This large DOE deal
(anothernon-grade investment) was announced on May
19, 2011, and despite those inside the Energy Department that
wanted to “kill the transaction,” it was finalized
on September 28, 2011. Along the way, it included
“relentlessassistance” by the Majority Leader Harry Reid as well
as some drama. Not to mention, SolarReserve, a predominately
Democrat donor, executives
had given to Reid’s campaign since 2008.
Needless
to say, there are more SolarReserve investors in the mix that can be
found in my November
2013 Green Corruption File: “Underneath Senator Harry Reid’s
Clean-Energy Dirt: Career politician directly linked to over
$3billion in green energy stimulus loans.” One of the key
connections to this deal is Citigroup, who has been a major investor
in SolarReserve since 2008, which is chronicled in my February 2013
post, “Citigroup’s
Massive ‘Green’ Money Machine.” Still, since Citigroup is
also a CAP corporate donor, we’ll dig deeper later.
General
Motors & the Chevy Volt
General
Motors (GM) –– the failed Big Auto company that was bailed
out by taxpayers in 2009 –– was a client of the Podesta Group
from
2010 until 2012. GM was also a CAP
donor in 2011, and a big recipient of stimulus money. Starting in
2009 until recently, they have bagged hundreds of millions ofstimulus
dollars (I tracked $471.6 million so far) to support the Chevy Volt
as well as green car components, of which I’ll get morespecific
when I dissect CAP’s corporate donors.
Duke
Energy
Duke
Energy, the nation’s largest electric power company, is another CAP
corporate donor, which has been a client of the PodestaGroup since
2009. What’s interesting here is that Jim Rogers, the chairman of
Duke Energy is another Obama donor, and was a major
player at the 2012 Democratic convention, as a contributor,
creditor, host, and a speaker. Duke Energy won hundreds of millionsof
green energy money for various projects, which will be detailed
later.
Progress
Energy
From
2011 to 2012, the Podesta Group added Progress Energy, which in 2009,
won
a $200 million smart-grid stimulus grant. Progress Energy is
acustomer
of Silver Spring Networks that is a Foundation
Capital, Kleiner Perkins, and Google investment
–– all with friends and ties to the Obama White House that willbe
documented a few times in the post.
SolarCity
& SunEdison
Additionally,
in 2012, the Podesta Group added SolarCity and SunEdison to its list
of clients –– both members of ACORE, therenewable energy lobby
powerhouse that helped “design the Department of Energy grant
programs that partly offset the loss of tax equity
financingarrangements.” This is part of the green corruption story
that I chronicled in my post, “The
RAT in the Recovery and the Gang of Ten.”
Founded
in 2006, SolarCity
has a string of connections to the Obama White House that I’ve
beentracking and reporting on for some time, including billionaire
players that received taxpayer money for other green energy
deals,such as Elon Musk, Nicholas
J. Pritzker, and George Soros. Throw in other stimulus winners
like Al Gore’s firm Generation Investment Management (early
investor and major
stockholder) as well as Obama’s Wall Street buddies: Goldman
Sachs, Bank
of America, and Citigroup.
In between, SolarCity has developed partnerships with PG&
E, and Google.
But before Podesta came along in 2012, SolarCity had been an
energyclient of top D.C. lobbyist McBee Strategic Consulting, since
2009 –– another major
green corruption villain that I tackled in September 2013.
Nevertheless,
Fox News reported
in December 2012, when SolarCity was under a federal probe that
theyhad applied for $341 million in grants. However, I found 33
federal stimulus grants from
the 1603 Program that were awarded to SolarCity and USB
SolarCity Master Tenant in 2011 and 2012, ranging across 15
states, totaling over $92 million.
MARCH
9, 2013 SolarCity UPDATE: Right after this publishing this post, it
was brought to my attention that SolarCity, whose success isdependent
on government handouts, has received additional green energy
subsidies, which places their total at $514 million.
According
to California
Watchdog.org…
SolarCity
has accepted more than $11
million in federal stimulus funds [from September 2009 to March
2010] to make its business run. But the real public support
appearselsewhere. Because SolarCity technically owns the energy
systems it installs, SolarCity — not the homeowner — earns the
federal taxbreak intended as an incentive to go solar. So far the
company has earned $411
million in such tax breaks. The company also may earn additional
income on state subsidies.
Meanwhile,
SunEdison, a global provider of solar-energy services, was an early
Goldman
Sachs clean-energy investment –– Goldman, another CAP donor,
and huge winner from the Green Bank of Obama that I’ll get to
muchlater. But we can confirm that SunEdison, in 2013, won 5 federal
stimulus grants from
the 1603 Program for “solar electricity” that ranges across 5
states, totaling over $1.8 million tax dollars.
Granite
Reliable / Brookfield Renewable Power
On
the other side, there is Granite Reliable that received
a $168.9 million stimulus loan in September 2011 for a wind projectin
Coos County, New Hampshire. Then on May 23, 2012, they also snagged a
$56 million 1603
grant for wind in New Hampshire, which I am assuming is the for
the same project. Work on Granite Reliable’s wind farm created
198construction jobs and six permanent jobs.
Nancy
Ann DeParle, President Obama’s former Deputy Chief of Staff for
Policy in the White House, had a financial
stake in the success of Granite Reliable, due to the fact that
she and sat on the Board of Directors for Noble Environmental
Power,LLC, which owned Granite Reliable.
Obviously,
this is a conflict of interest, but there are additional
ties to this wind deal. Noble sold Granite Reliable in December
2010 to Brookfield Asset
Management (BAM), just 6 months prior to the conditional approval
(June 2011) of the DOE loan guarantee and deep into the
applicationprocess. Despite the speculative
credit rating, this loan was finalized in September 2011.
Not
only was Brookfield Renewable Power (a
subsidiary of BAM) represented by Citigroup as lead
advisor during the loan review process, BAM has additional
Democrat ties such as Diana Taylor, former New York City MayorMichael
Bloomberg’s long-time girlfriend. As mentioned earlier, George
Soros and Martin J. Whitman, which are both prominentDemocratic
donors, are both heavily invested in Brookfield.
But
this case directly hits
the Podesta family, because from 2009 until 2012, Heather Podesta,
sister-in-law of John Podesta, via Heather
Podesta & Partners served as lobbyists
for BAM –– and they’ve been lobbying on behalf of Brookfield
Power (electric utilities), since 2011, raking in over $1.3
million from the two connected groups.
Southern
Company
Mrs.
Podesta’s firm also represented Southern
Co. from 2008 until 2010, raking in over $300,000. This energy
giant is part the Vogtle
Project, which in February 2010, won a massive DOE
loan: “a conditional commitment for $8.33 billion to support
the construction of the nation’s next generation of advancednuclear
reactors.” Despite the project’s troubles
coupled with harsh criticism,
the Obama administration just
finalized this DOE deal.
Southern
Company –– a heavy hitter lobbyist and big donor to both
political parties –– bankrolled
President Obama’s 2013 Inauguration. And due to the fact that
thiswas another DOE loan approval that was pressured
by the White House (this one in December 2009), further Intel is
found in myJuly
2013 Green Corruption File, “Nuclear Disaster: $10.33 billion
in energy loans pressured by the White House and POTUS approved,
nowat risk.”
Center
for American Progress: The “green” pusher
While
CAP characterizes
itself as “an independent nonpartisan educational
institutededicated to improving the lives of Americans through
progressive ideas and action,” according
to left-leaning Huffington Post, they’ve “been a vocal voice
for this president’s policies in the media and on the Hill.
Buttheir area of highest visibility is advocacy for a clean-energy
economy where John Podesta has personally led the effort.”
Of
course, as a strong proponent of alternative energy, CAP has also
been a big backer of the Energy Department’s hugemulti-billion-loan
guarantee program for renewable energy projects –– a government
program, of which the stimulus
law added $16 billion in lending power (the DOE’s “junk bond”
and cronyism portfolio),
where we find that many of CAP’s corporate donors have cashed inbig
time.
We
also know that according
to the Washington Free Beacon, in September 2008, CAP “authored
a report
titled “Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and
StartBuilding a Low-Carbon Economy” that included many
recommendations ultimately incorporated into President Obama’s
controversial $800billion stimulus package.” But CAP is not done:
since the president released his Climate
Action Plan in June 2013, CAP continues to pressure
for additional action,
including, but not limited to, rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline and
a call to dole out billions
more in renewable energy funds.
CAP,
the progressive think tank with deep
rooted ties to the Clintons, has been on my radar since 2010, and
periodically mentioned throughout my work. As noted already, they
areclosely
aligned with, and have a major foothold inside
the Obama White House. This is not limited to the new CAP
additions:Denis
McDonough, White House Chief of Staff and Obama’s new advisor,
John Podesta.
What’s
been forgotten is that a squadron of CAP experts worked with
President Obama’s transition team, and they have been“reportedly
highly influential
in helping to craft White House Policy.” In 2008, Edwin
Chen of Bloomberg, in his article, “Soros-Funded Democratic
Idea Factory Becomes Obama Policy Font,” noted “CAP, which has180
staffers and a $27 million budget, devotes as much as half of its
resources to promoting its ideas through blogs [ThinkProgress and
theWonk Room], events, publications and media outreach.”
In
fact CAP
boasts of John Podesta’s part: “Podesta served as co-chair of
President Barack Obama’s transition, where he coordinated
thepriorities of the incoming administration’s agenda, oversaw the
development of its policies, and spearheaded its appointments ofmajor
cabinet secretaries and political appointees.”
In
addition to Podesta as the co-chair, “at least 10 other CAP
experts” were advising the incoming administration,
“includingMelody Barnes (Obama bundler), the center’s executive
vice president for policy who co-chairs the agency-review working
groupand Cassandra Butts, the senior vice president for domestic
policy, who is now a senior transition staffer,” reported
Bloomberg.
What
was has not been widely disclosed is CAP’s dark
participation, other than their “recommendations,” inside
thestimulus package, whereas as noted, $100 billion was earmarked for
renewable energy. Hidden deep inside the 1,073-page stimulus
bill,which was drafted
by the Obama transition team and congressional aides, was a RAT:
an attempt to suppress potential investigations, and only a few
newsoutlets caught it in February of 2009: the Washington
Post and the
Washington
Examiner, and
completely exposed in my Green Corruption File entitled, “The
RAT in the Recovery and the Gang of Ten.”
Entitled
the Obama-Biden
Transition Project, it employed approximately 400 people and it
was comprised of Obama bundlers and campaign contributors as well
aslobbyist and those that operate inside Washington’s egregious
revolving door. What’s more fascinating to point out is
thataccording
to the Center for Responsive Politics, “Members of Barack
Obama’s presidential transition team weren’t necessarily
selectedsolely on their resumes and expertise — some may have
scored positions over similarly qualified individuals because they
supportedthe president-elect by bundling money for his presidential
campaign or opening their own wallets to him.”
Five
CAP Fellows at the Center of “the green”
More
relevant to green corruption is that this lengthy list provides us
with some familiar members operating inside thisclean-energy scam,
which of course, were also bundlers for Obama’s 2008
campaign –– even
bundling again in 2012. Even though, in October 2013, I gave
insight into the Obama-Biden Transition Team and the numerous
greenenergy players, here’s an overview with the CAP fellows marked
with asterisks:
Valerie
B. Jarrett (Obama bundler): Obama-Biden Transition Project Co-Chair
*John
Podesta (Obama bundler): Obama-Biden Transition Project Co-Chair
/Now “Executive Power Czar”
*Carol
M. Browner (Obama bundler): Advisory Board Member and Energy Policy
Working Groups / Was promoted to Climate Czar, from January 2009
until February 2011
Michael
Froman (Obama bundler): Advisory Board Member
TJ
Glauthier (Obama bundler): Executive Office of the President
Lisa
Jackson (Obama bundler): Energy and Natural Resources Team Leads
David
Sandalow (Obama bundler): Energy Policy Working Groups
*Steve
Spinner (Two-time Obama bundler): Technology, Innovation &
Government Reform Policy Working Groups / Was promoted to DOE
Advisor in April 2009 until September 2011
Tom
Wheeler (Two-time Obama bundler): Working Group Members; Science,
Tech, Space and Arts Team Leader
Heather
Zichal (Obama bundler): Energy Policy Working Groups
Add
to this list two more CAP fellows: Lawrence Summers, who, in late
2008 (until 2011), became
President-elect Obama’s Director of the National Economic
Counciland Van Jones, who in March 2009, was
appointed as a special adviser for green jobs for the Obama White
House, until he resigned in September 2009. This means that we
havefive CAP fellows that I’ll profile below.
Obviously,
operatives from this team were rewarded with positions inside the
Obama White House, while others in 2009, snagged other keygreen
energy roles. My focus has been on the “DOE Insiders” ––
those from Obama’s “Green
Team” and his Energy Department officials
and advisors, which included its fair share of Al Gore disciples
andwell-connected Venture
Capitalists. There has been a dozen on my radar that are either
directly connected to tens of billions of green-government
subsidies(loans, grants and special tax breaks), or helped their
friends secure the funds.
Ironically,
many
have fled since their 2009 appointments, but it’s worth noting
that the “DOE Dirty Dozen,” under Energy Secretary Stephen
Chu,includes Carol Browner (1), Lisa Jackson, Van Jones (2), Steve
Isakowitz, Steve Spinner (3), Matt Rogers, Jonathon Silver (4),
CathyZoi (5), Kristina Johnson (6) and others like James Markowsky
(7), Steven Westly (8), Sanjay Wagle (9), David Danielson (10),
DavidSandalow (11), David Prend (12) –– another piece of this
scandal currently in the works.
What’s
telling is that these DOE Insiders were part of the decision making
process, even as the rest had access influence in oneway or another.
They were in charge of picking winners and losers, especially in
regards to the Energy Department’s multi-billion LoanGuarantee
Program, mentioned many times in this post, whereas I have personally
been tracking since 2010.
What
we find is that many of those operating inside the Energy Department
had more sinister roles and were using tactics such aslobbying,
pressure, collusion, and coercion. The evidence of this started
circulating in 2011, when the Solyndra Saga broke, but worse,was
confirmed in many of the DOE email exchanges released to the public
since that time, which includes the massive “2012 InternalDOE Email
Dump” that was unleashed in late October of that year.
These
correspondences basically
prove that the president, the White House, Secretary Chu, and
certain DOE officials lied about how they handled the green
energyloans on various fronts –– which was followed by secrecy,
cover-ups and even perjury.
In
November 2012, Marita Noon and I began
unleashing the content of these email interactions, of which we
found plenty of references to the president, POTUS, the White
House,the “7th floor,” and “the Hill.” More disturbing is
that contrary to House Oversight testimonies by DOE officials,
thoseinside the DOE were rushing the approval of the DOE loans ––
a fast track process imposed at the POTUS level, yet they were met
withresistance by the Treasury as well as the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB),
amongst others involved in the deal making process.
As
it turns out, these emails reveal that many of the DOE loans were
rushed and approved for political reasons –– visits,speeches,
announcements, photo ops, and talking points for the president as
well as for the purpose of helping those connected tothe companies
seeking the loans –– CEO’s, investors, and Democrat
politicians, which goes beyond subsidizing
Nevada companies in order to help Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid win his 2010 reelection campaign.
These
bombshell emails also expose the cozy relationships DOE officials and
advisors had during the loan review process with loanapplicants and
their CEO’s, lobbyists, and investors, etc. It’s no surprise that
they had meetings and calls with DOE officials andEnergy Secretary
Chu, but there are documented meetings and calls with the president,
VP, and WH as well as plenty of “greenfraternizing” going on ––
bike riding, coffee meetings, sleepovers, “beer summits,” Al Gore
parties, dinners, Democratfundraisers, and so on.
NOTE:
“2012 Internal DOE Email Dump” is in reference to the House
Oversight huge document dump that wasunleashed
in October 2012 (see Memorandum,
Appendix
I and the 350+
page Appendix II), and due to its value, will be sourced many
times in this report.
Today
we’ll stay focused on Center for American Progress, staring with
the fact that other than John Podesta, we have ValerieB. Jarrett:
President’s Obama’s longest serving advisor and confidante, of
which some refer to her as the “shadow
chief of staff.”
While
Podesta is directly tied to CAP, Ms. Jarrett has an indirect
connection: Prior to joining the Obama administration as Senior
Advisor and assistant to the president, she served
as Vice Chairman of The Joyce
Foundation (Obama sat on the board 1994 to 2002), the
Chicago-based organization, who is a major donor to
radicalenvironmentalist and conservation groups as
well as progressive movements like CAP.
This
was part of the climate scam that not involves many green corruption
suspects, but leads to cap-and-trade,
of which I began to unravel
in 2010, and what
I refer to as the “pot of gold at the end of the climate
rainbow” –– warning that with so much at stake, even if
theplanet blows up, they will get their cap-and-trade, or a version
of it.
Jarrett,
also in September 2009, hosted a “Clean-Energy
Summit” where an array of attendees just so happened to
“collectively strike gold” with over $5.3 billion in
taxpayerfunds from the Green Bank of Obama. We also know that
internal emails showed (released in 2011) that deliberations
on Solyndra –– the first DOE loan to go bad and scream
corruption –– “reached into Obama’s inner circle,
includingsenior adviser Valerie Jarrett and former chief of staff
Rahm Emanuel.”
Additionally,
we can confirm via the “2012 Internal DOE Email Dump” that Ms.
Jarrett had a December 7, 2010, meeting with “theCEO’s of NRG and
Reliant.” NRG Energy (a Fortune 500 and S&P 500 Index company)
and its subsidiaries (Reliant is one) was
the recipient of most of junk-rated stimulus loans, which
includes NRG Solar for the Agua Caliente project ($967 million);
NRGSolar for the California Valley Solar Ranch ($1.2 billion);
BrightSource Energy Ivanpah project ($1.6 billion); and Prologis
forProject Amp ($1.4 billion).
NRG
Energy is one of those twelve timely Soros investments that I alluded
to earlier (along with additional Obama administrationconnections)
that snagged $5.2 billion in loans and a truck load of grants as well
as other cleantech funds from the Green Bank of Obama.But it is the
highly paid president
and CEO (since 2003) David Crane (stock
owner and an aggressive
pusher of clean energy) who appeared to have significant
influence. During
the course of the June 2012, House Oversight hearing, Crane
admitted that between the Bush administration and the
Obamaadministration, he had visited the White House “14 to 15
times,” of which 6 to 7 of his visits were with the Obama White
House.
Lawrence
Summers:
Currently listed as a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Center for
American Progress
Former
Director of President Obama’s National Economic Council
(designated
on November 24, 2008 to 2011)
Former
Secretary of Treasury under President Bill Clinton (from 1999
to 2001)
It’s
worth noting that back in the day (November 2008), President-elect
Barack Obama rolled out his National Economic Council(NEC), and
installed “economic czar” Larry
Summers (not subject to pesky confirmation hearings), who had
served as Robert Rubin’s protégé
at Treasury. Rubin, on the other hand, who had spent 25 years
atGoldman Sachs before serving as Secretary of Treasury under the
Clinton administration (1995-1999),
after his government stint went to Citigroup as a Senior
Counselor, only to retire in January 2009. However, what’s not
widely known is that behind the scenes [during Timothy Geithner’stime
at Treasury], “Rubin was still wielding enormous influence in
Barack Obama’s Washington,” documented
POLITICO.
What’s
worth pointing out again is that Summers’ private memos to Obama,
which were released by The
New Yorker in
early 2012, revealed the real intent behind the economic stimulus
bill. American Enterprise Institute reported,
“A key source for writer Ryan Lizza is a 57-page,
“Sensitive & Confidential” memo written by economist
Summers to Obama in December 2008,” which exposed “11
stunningrevelations from Larry Summers’ secret economics memo to
Barack Obama.” One in particular was that the stimulus was
aboutimplementing the Obama agenda and rewarding his green cronies.
The
short-run economic imperative was to identify as many campaign
promises or high priority items that would spend out quicklyand be
inherently temporary. … The stimulus package is a key tool for
advancing clean energy goals and fulfilling a number of
campaigncommitments.
Summers,
a Distinguished
Senior Fellow at CAP, has significant ties to Wall Street, which
if you’ve been paying attention, they ensured an Obama victory
in2008. Prior
to Summers heading to the Obama White House as top economic
advisor,he had an elaborate
gig where he worked just one day a week while making $5.2 million
in two years at D.E. Shaw –– a New York-based $39
Billion Hedge Fund Giant. According
to the Wall Street
Journal, Summers
“received hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from
major financialinstitutions,” which included “frequent
appearances before Wall Street firms including J.P. Morgan,
Citigroup, Goldman Sachs andLehman Brothers.”
What’s
significant is that both Goldman Sachs and Citigroup (profiled later)
are corporate CAP donors that either won billions ingreen energy
funds, or made money off of the deals that occurred. And, the
majority of the deal making came from the now $32 billionEnergy
Department Loan
Guarantee Program, with the majority of the loans awarded and
finalized between 2009 and September 2011. This is the same
programthat, as mentioned earlier, has been pushed and promoted by
Center for American Progress for some time.
During
Summer’s time inside the Obama White House, it’s unclear how
involved Summers was in the loan program decision makingprocess, but
we can confirm via the “2012 Internal DOE Email Dump” that he was
part of a scheduled January 2010 meeting with JonathanSilver (head of
the Loan Program at the time), a few DOE officials, and Carol Browner
–– the latter another CAP fellow that will beprofiled next.
“Nearly
a year before Solyndra
went bankrupt and engulfed the White House in scandal,
PresidentObama’s top economic advisors [Summers and Timothy
Geithner] warned him about the risks of the clean-energy loan program
that granted thesolar company more than a half-billion dollars” ––
as
reported by the Business Insider in September 2011.
Needless
to say, Solyndra was only one of the 22
“junk” loans awarded by the Energy Department’s $16 billion
stimulus program –– a program where we find that Summers
isdirectly tied to one of those DOE deals, while his buddy David
Shaw, a two-time Obama bundler, had an invested interest in more.
Mr.
Shaw is the founder of D.E. Shaw, where Summer’s worked before
joining the Obama White House, and a firm that is connected toat
least two renewable energy companies that snagged billions in DOE
stimulus loans: First Wind and First Solar that are also CAPcorporate
donors, which will be expanded upon later. First Wind was the winner
of a $117 million DOE stimulus loan, plus hundreds ofmillions in
stimulus grants, of which, according
to Peter Schweizer, “Larry Summers was part owner of First
Wind.”Meanwhile, First Solar won three large stimulus loans,
totaling over $3 billion of taxpayer money –– not to mention
additional greenenergy funds.
Carol
M. Browner:
Founding member of Center for American Progress and currently a
Senior Fellow
Currently
on the Advisory Committee of the Export-Import Bank of the United
States
Headed
the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy (AKA Climate Czar),
from January 2009 until February 2011
Obama-Biden
2008-Transition Team role: Advisory Board Member and Energy Policy
Working Groups
2008
Obama Bundler
Browner,
a career Washington insider, who directed the EnvironmentalProtection
Agency (EPA) during the Clinton administration, is an Al Gore
acolyte, and an environmental
extremist with a few left-wing radical ties on her secret resume.
While Browner worked for Gore as far back as 1988, at some
point(between 2007 and 2009), she
served as a board member of the Gore’s Alliance for Climate
Protection –– which, in July 2011, was morphed into “The
Climate Reality Project.” From what I gather, this was the
result of merging two environmental groups: The Alliance for
ClimateProtection and The Climate Project, which were both founded in
2006 by Al Gore.
Browner
was also a 2008 Obama bundler and part of the Obama-Biden Transition
Team, who was later appointed to the president’s 2009Green
Team as the “climate czar,” only to abruptly
resign in early 2011.
Prior
to her tenure at the Obama White House, Browner was a founding board
member (from 2003-2008) for CAP, and she is currentlylisted as a
Senior
Fellow. Browner, not
only “pushed for billions of dollars for renewable energy in
the economic stimulus bill,” she was part of the
decision-makingprocess inside the Energy Department’s Loan
Guarantee Program, which at the time of her departure had doled
out $34.7 billion of taxpayer money. Browner is
implicated in an array of issues surrounding these loans, as
reflected in many of the DOE email exchanges released to the
publicsince 2011, as well as the “2012 Internal DOE Email Dump.”
With
such deep connections to the former-Vice President Al Gore, and his
climate mission, one wonders why Gore and his investmentfirms ––
Kleiner Perkins and Generation Investment Management –– raked in
so much of the DOE money under her watch. As of January2013, I
tracked that these two firms combined are tied to at least $10
billion (more if you add in Silver Spring Networks and the factthat
their “customers” raked in $1.3 billion in smart-grid stimulus
grants), from the taxpayer-funded Green Bank of Obama, themajority
coming from the 2009-Recovery Act –– the stimulus bill (renewable
energy part) that Doerr helped author, while Brownerpushed to include
taxpayer money.
Browner
may have left her “climate” post, but she currently sits (and has
for a while) on the Advisory Committee of theExport-Import Bank of
the United States (Ex-Im), another means where our government dishes
out billions of American taxpayer dollars insupport of clean energy.
“The
Ex-Im Bank uses taxpayer
money to backstop politically favored projects, which “just
greases the wheels of the powerful and often corrupt big
WashingtonEstablishment,” wrote
Heritage Action. This is another “green bank” that not
onlysupports other
Nations, but where you’ll find corporate welfare and crony
capitalism run amok, which includes quite a number of the
president’sfavored firms: Abengoa, First Solar (Exelon Corp.) and
SolarWorld, to name a few.
As
recently
as October 2013, at a Washington,
D.C. CAP event (10th anniversary policy conference), Browner had
this to say about the Keystone Pipeline: “There will be some
twistsand turns” in the political debate over the pipeline, but “at
the end of the day [Obama] is going to say no,” reported
the Huffington Post. This was an even that besides Browner,
featuredother Big Green personalities such as Van Jones, Tom Steyer,
John Podesta, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Secretary of State John
Kerry,California Governor Jerry Brown, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel,
and of course, Al Gore.
Tom
Steyer, CAP
Board Member and Donor, Climate Change Radical, Big Oil Investor,
Obama Bundler andBillionaire Buddy
At
that event, Browner was joined
on a panel with Van Jones, the former “green jobs czar” ––
also a CAP fellow (profiled next) –– along with
environmentaladvocate Tom Steyer, who has been on an anti-Keystone
XL crusade for some time. In fact, Jones has been on the record
slamming
the president’s delay on denying the pipeline. Meanwhile, Steyer
isthe same hedge-fund billionaire and megabucks Obama bundler and
Democrat donor that was also a Big Oil Investor through his
formerfirm Farallon Capital Management that has an invested
interest in the rejection of the pipeline.
Like
most prominent Obama fundraisers, Steyer has enjoyed relatively easy
access to the White House, and as of the summer of2012, it was
reported that he had met with senior White House officials in the
West Wing on at least four occasions. Steyer waseven handpicked to
make a cameo
appearance at the 2012
Democratic National Convention.
Additionally,
Steyer, “plans to spend as much as $100 million during the 2014
election, seeking to pressure federal and stateofficials to enact
climate change measures through a hard-edge campaign of attack ads
against governors and lawmakers,” reported
the New York Times
last month.
In
September 2012, the Washington
Free Beacon
documented
that Steyer “is reportedly
one of the backers of Greener
Capital, which invests in alternative fuel companies that benefit
from the anti-oil policies of the Obama administration.” What’skey
to this Green Corruption file is that “Steyer has donated at least
$1.4 million to the Center for American Progress (CAP) since2009
through his TomKat Charitable Trust. As of 2010, he was listed as a
director of the left-wing think tank.”
In
December 2013, The Beacon, in their piece “Keystone
to the Kingdom,” we find a stunning look at the relationship
between Mr. Steyer and John Podesta: “Steyer
is on the board of the Center for American Progress, and in the
earlymonths of 2012 he and Podesta cosigned a Wall
Street Journal op-ed,
“We
Don’t Need More Foreign Oil and Gas,” arguing against
Keystone and for tax loopholes such as the Production Tax
Credit,increasing the value of the green energy companies in which
Steyer invested and on whose boards Podesta sat.”
Moreover,
while a slew of Democrats who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline, stand
to benefit from its rejection, Farallon Capital Management “has
extensive holdings in fossil fuel companies — including
investmentsthat could benefit from the blocking of the Keystone
pipeline,” reported
The Daily Caller in
May 2013. One in particular stands out: “Farallon also still holds
stock in BP” –– the oil giant thataccording
to POLITICO
in 2010, Obama was the biggest recipient of BP donations over the
past twenty years.”
In
case you didn’t know, British Petroleum, the oil and gas giant that
in 2001, began re branding to Beyond Petroleum (BP), washeavily in
the “green” business via BP
Alternative Energy (biofuels, wind and solar). However, in the
spring of 2013, BP switched gears and started abandoning
renewable energy. Still, that was after BP had snagged millions
in“green” funds from the Obama administration, of which I began
to unravel in April 2013 due the fact that BP is in cahoots with
Sempra Energy, the winner of a $337 million DOE stimulus loan for
theMesquite Solar Project in Arizona. Also, BP, at that time, was
part of all
five of Sempra’s wind projects. BP Alternative Energy is also
an investor
in BrightSource Energy –– the winner of a $1.6
billion DOE stimulus loan that involves more CAP corporate donors
and a slew of additional Obama cronies that I’ll get to much later.
Van
Jones: Senior
Fellow at Center for American Progress (it is unknown when Van first
joined CAP, but we doknow that he rejoined
in February 2010)
Green
Jobs Czar, from March 2009 to September 2009
2008
to 2009 Crafter of the Recovery Act: both personally and via the
Apollo Alliance, as part or their National Steering Committee, where
Van Jones was a board member from 2006 to either 2008 or 2009
As
the story goes, Van Jones –– left-wing
radical, turned CNN contributor –– was handpicked to become
Obama’s “green jobs czar” in 2009: “We were so delighted tobe
able to recruit him into the White House,” Senior Advisor Valerie
Jarrett, stated on August 12, 2009. Mr. Jones’ advisorypost at the
White House was short lived due to his radical past and behavior, and
in September 2009 he resigned, blaming
it on a “smear campaign of lies and distortions to distract
anddivide.”
Nevertheless,
Van is another very active CAP member where his focus remains on
“green-collar jobs.” He’s still a strong forcein the midst of
the climate change debate, pushing green jobs, as well as his extreme
environmental ideology.
YOU
can fight back and destroy dirty oligarchs!
When
the bad guys, and their lap-dog politicians, attack you because your
products are better than theirs they are proving that they have to
cheat to compete. They cheat with political bribes, black-lists,
character assassination attacks, collusion and other anti-trust
violating acts.
When
your Senator holds stock market shares in companies that exist to
profit on the backs of consumers, then it is impossible for that
Senator to ever do anything but be corrupt!
The
crooks at Google, Facebook, Tesla, Linkedin, Netflix, etc., broke
felony laws and the basic principles of Democracy.
They
bribed your Senators, White House Staff, insider agency staff and
operated a Silicon Valley Oligarch sociopath political Cartel.
As
Mother Jones top editor says:
In
18 years of living here, I find zero evidence that the "City
Family" is benefiting anybody but its members, developers,
old-school socialites, and tech billionaires.
— Clara
Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) February
14, 2020
I
can't even with how insular and incestuous and corrupt SF is. Mayor
@londonbreed
acknowledges she had relationship with DPW Nuru two decades ago and
that they remained close friends https://t.co/HEhIlulkyj
— Clara
Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) February
14, 2020
Your
public officials set-up, operated and maintained an organized crime
scheme for personal profit at the expense of every taxpayer. They
went after Five Trillion treasury dollars of your tax
money for their personal interests via rigged stock market scams,
rigged government contracts, exclusionary policy manipulations and
other schemes that harmed American taxpayers.
YOU
OWE IT TO YOURSELF AND THE NATION TO TAKE THEM DOWN!
YOU
CAN WIPE THEM OUT, ALL BY YOURSELF, IN 100% LEGAL WAYS.
YOU
CAN WIPE THEM OUT EVEN FASTER WITH CROWD-SOURCED FORENSICS AND
ANTI-CORRUPTION AI SOFTWARE! JOIN THE REST OF THE PUBLIC IN AN EPIC
ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORT!
You
must write FBI-quality criminal activities reports and file those
reports, by certified mail, with every law enforcement and regulatory
agency in every country in the world, including the FBI, OSC, GAO,
EU, Interpol, FSB, UN, etc. CC the social media sites with your
reports.
You
can use basic private investigator websites to track and back-ground
every person, organization and company involved in the corruption and
trace their RICO law violations. You can provide that data to The
U.S. Congress and every agency, with a copy to every social media
posting.
You
can now use open-source, free, collaborative NSA-class global
databases that can track all of the locations, hookers, fake fronts,
family trusts, bank accounts, stock market accounts, bribes and other
goodies, of any corrupt public official, in minutes! You get that
free anti-corruption software from GitHub, CodePen, Torrents, Onion
Project, The Guardian, ICIJ and all over the web.
YOU
open your own private investigator/citizen sleuth crowd-sourced
investigations into the following:
-
Every stock market account they or their family owns
-
Every Uber or Lyft ride they ever took for any meeting or transport
of sex workers
-
Every flight manifest they appeared on
-
Every bank account they have ever held
-
Every lawsuit, divorce record and police record they have ever
appeared in
-
Every trust fund they or their family holds
-
Every shell corporation they, or their family holds
-
Every person named in the Epstein Pedo book:
https://www.scribd.com/document/416207833/Jeffrey-Epsteins-Little-Black-Book-Redacted
cross referenced across all of the other databases and then supplied
to the FBI and Child Protection Agencies
-
Every item in the Swiss Leaks that cross connects to their holdings
-
Every item in the Panama Papers Leaks that cross connects to their
holdings
-
Every item in the WikiLeaks that cross connects to their holdings
-
Every item in the Snowden Leaks that cross connects to their holdings
-
Every sex trafficking incident that connects to each of them alone,
and in groups
-
Every financial transaction between any of the parties on the master
list and the character assassination and hit job firms of: Google,
Univision, Gawker Media, Unimoda, Jalopnik, Gizmodo,Black Cube,
Fusion GPS, Media Matters, Think Progress, IN-Q-Tel, K2 Intelligence,
WikiStrat, Podesta Group, YouTube, Alphabet, David Drummond, Larry
Page, Facebook, Correct The Recor, Stratfor, ShareBlue, Sid
Blumenthal, David Brock, Eric Schmidt, Sunshine Sachs, Covington and
Burling, Buzzfeed, Perkins Coie and Wilson Sonsini or their
derivatives with common owners.
-
Every item in the Quest Leaks that cross connects to their holdings
-
Every tactical deployment, by a campaign financier, of the tactics
listed in this manual:
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP89-01258R000100010002-4.pdf
-
Every sex service that their credit card payments every connect too
-
Every real estate transaction that any name or company they, or their
family, were involved in, tracks to
.....
and hundreds of thousands of other information points about them that
prove that they benefit from crimes that they engage in for others
who engage in crimes using the America public policy system.
It
all goes into shared 100% legal public collaborative databases that
work like XKEYSCORE, or MS Access, or Oracle Databases.
The
proof of collusion, organized criminal actions and raw covert
corruption is indisputable. The actors are all the same people. The
beneficiaries are all the same people. The communications between the
parties all coordinate the same actions.
Demand
their arrests, indictments, exposures and bankruptcies in public ads,
letters to the editor, blog posts, bumper stickers, lawsuits, flyers,
newsletters, email and every other outreach manner.
Say
"Fuck You" to the Silicon Valley Oligarch
'Illuminati' scumbags and the crooked Senators and Governor's they
bribed.
Show
these oligarch crooks what billions of taxpaying voters with
collaborative FBI-class forensics investigation software can do to
their corrupt tech Cartel!
What
To Do To Write Up The Dossier On Each Person And Each Corrupt
Politician:
Dig
through their trash and buy their trash bags from the garbage man
after they pick them up
Locate
a beneficiary for a probate proceeding
Research
current and / or historical property holdings
Identify
mortgage information
Identify
secured lenders
Identify
related party property transactions
Determine
current market value of real property
Locate
bankruptcy filings
Retrieve
and analyze bankruptcy records
Uncover
improper relationships
Locate
federal civil lawsuits
Locate
federal criminal records
Retrieve
and analyze federal civil and criminal records
Retrieve
mug shots from arrest records
Provide
independent analysis
Locate
state and local criminal arrest records
Retrieve
and analyze review criminal records
Provide
peace of mind
Locate
home phone numbers
Locate
cell phone numbers
Identify
owner of home or cell phone number
Determine
owners of corporation
Retrieve
and analyze corporate records
Locate
current or former executives
Interview
current or former executives
Find
and retrieve judgment and lien filings
Research
familial history
Connect
the dots
Locate
witnesses for a civil or criminal lawsuit
Interview
witnesses for a civil or criminal lawsuit
Find
assets
Find
current or historical boat registrations
Find
current or historical aircraft registrations
Search
for hidden assets
Conduct
business intelligence
Discreet
intelligence gathering
Determine
connections between parties
Locate
bank account information
Locate
current or former employees of a company
Interview
current or former employees of a company
Locate
significant inheritances
Show
you the big picture
Identify
a will for an estate
Locate
probate records
Identify
foreign assets
Locate
regulatory records
Identify
regulatory actions
Identify
professional licenses
Determine
prior disciplinary records for professional licenses
Analyze
state and federal political contributions
Analyze
state lobbyist records
Analyze
federal lobbyist records
Identify
potential whistleblowers
Vet
expert witnesses
Interview
industry sources
Gather
competitive intelligence
Identify
related party business transactions
Retrieve
and analyze non-profit financial filings
Knock
on doors
Obtain
and analyze Department of Labor Form 5500 Filings
Submit
FOIA / FOIL requests to government agencies
Obtain
driving record history (in applicable states)
Find
current vehicle registrations
Find
historical vehicle registrations
Make
you look brilliant
Determine
current market value of motor vehicles
Assist
with jury selection
Background
checks on prospective jurors
Analyze
documents for potential fraud
Identify
Risks
Identifying
corporate relationships
Give
you a competitive advantage
Identify
Uniform Commercial Code filings
Foreign
corporation research
Help
you manage sensitive situations
Overseas
litigation research
Identify
stock ownership
Find
facts
Locate
online resume
Identify
online networking profiles
Locate
historical video or news footage
Conduct
historical newspaper research
Conduct
mobile or stationary surveillance
Perform
clandestine operations
Find
undisclosed ties
Identify
and retrieve U.S. Tax Court cases
Locate
a missing person
Identify
and confirm education history
Identify
and confirm previous employment history
Scour
the Internet
Research
presence on social networks or message boards
We
will tell you what those bastards are up to!
Send
the IRS information about how Google, Netflix, Alphabet are
cheating on their taxes and hiding money in Ireland and the Cayman
Islands. Get the IRS to sue the oligarchs in tax court.
Enhance
the publishing of research articles proving that Silicon Valley
tech companies destroy the minds of children with tech addiction
and brain manipulation and get parents to sue those companies for
harming their children
Expose
every secret cash conduit that the oligarchs use to bribe
politicians
Demand
new laws in Congress to stop politicians from owning any stock
because that is the #1 source of bribes
Use
lip-reading software to see what they are saying or have an actual
deaf-person do it
Photograph
them with any hotties they are seen with and then face-track the
hotties to see if they are hookers or ill-repute escorts
Use
one of the many free on-line news publishing softwares and make a
global online newspaper that constantly exposes their crimes
Write
every federal agency and demand investigation and prosecution of
the perps
Assemble
the massive number of news reports about their sex scandals and
distribute those reports as books, articles, documentaries and news
aggregations to prove what a bunch of sick perverts these people
are
Publish
the speaker list from Techonomy, Davos, TED, Burning Man, etc. to
show that it is always the same little group of arrogant assholes
that self-promote their hype at each of these elitist events
Leave
notices on the windshield of any of their Tesla's reminding them
what douche-bags they are
Organize
petitions and letter-writing campaigns to have the overtly corrupt
ones removed from their jobs
Go
to their share-holder meetings and hand-out flyers about their
corruption
Hire
Charles Spies (
https://www.dickinson-wright.com/our-people/charles-spies?tab=0
) to sue them
Hire
Harmeet K. Dhillon (http://www.dhillonlaw.com ) to sue them
Hire
COA ( http://www.causeofaction.org) to sue them
Hire
law firms from China or Russia to sue them for a very low price
Hire
Steven S. Biss ( http://
www.linkedin.com/in/steven-s-biss-6517037 ) to sue them
Blog
about the corruption of the political targets every day with the
day's news each day
Read
their divorce filings in court records and see who else might help
expose their corruption
Read
their locations over the last 12 months -
https://www.protocol.com/government-buying-location-data
Talk
to every neighbor that has filed a complaint about them
Hire
Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP to sue them,
especially tech media companies
Re-read
all of the latest "How To Be A Private Investigator"
books and brochures
Ask
Paul Kangas in San Francisco how he investigates the corrupt
Go
back to http://www.pacer.gov
and read each of the lawsuits
against them to get more clues about them
Put
a card table and a pop-up booth outside their office and hand out
flyers about them
Publish
every stock market share they, and their family, owns
Produce
a dossier on every corrupt partner of every Silicon Valley VC firm
Know
that there are over 3000 additional forensic tools you can use to
expose them 100% legally...
The
Big Book
... - amazon.com
Cleantech
Investing Gets Its Day in the Sun As Congressional Insiders Pump And
Dump Like Mobsters
Washington
Post Staff Writer
Everybody
seems to be looking for ways to make money on technologies that are
said to reduce fossil-fuel emissions, wean the country from foreign
oil and, generally, save the world. Venture capitalists have
invested $3.64 billion nationally this year in search of promising
ideas in what they call "greentech" or "cleantech."
Locally, a few prominent
venture capitalists have invested in the field. But they are wary
about the bubble-like feeling that has taken hold across the
country. Such investing has its own unique risks.
Backing
Web companies or software companies often requires only a few
million dollars. But investing in greentech can require lots of
research and development, as well as buying factories to make the
technologies. Environmental laws regulating the industry can
change rapidly, or not at all, making it tricky to pinpoint the
right moment to release a product.
Michael
R. Steed, founder of the District's Paladin Capital Group, said
many greentech companies are overvalued. With the president
promoting investment in alternative energy and Congress preparing
an energy bill that could shift an enormous amount of money into
the area, Steed said, "everyone is running in saying because
of what Congress is going to do, my company is worth three times
what it was."
Still,
Paladin is one of the Washington area's largest investors in
greentech with four companies in its portfolio. Last month, it led
a group of investors putting $77 million in HelioVolt, an Austin
firm.
HelioVolt
builds thin solar panels made of a material known as copper indium
gallium selenide that is said to produce the same amount of energy
for almost half the cost of electricity, at 50 cents per watt,
possibly enabling the widespread expansion of solar technology to
buildings and homes. Silicon solar panels, which can cost $2 per
watt, have been the target of investments for three decades.
"The
best deals we're seeing are deals which bring to the table
disruptive technologies," Steed said.
Paladin,
with former CIA and NSA directors on board, invests with homeland
security in mind. For example, Paladin wants power to be
distributed widely and stored where it's needed in cases of
emergency, rather than at central power plants.
"It
isn't that we'll just do anything in the alternative energy base,"
Steed said. "We want to support products and services that
focus on distributed power as opposed to core power."
That
kind of specialized approach to investing in greentech is typical
of local firms. "It's a big and important space that
investors are going to be looking at for many years to come,"
said Jonathan Silver, founder of the District's Core Capital
Partners.
Core
Capital was part of a $35 million investment in Infinite Power
Solutions, a Littleton, Colo., firm that is creating thin film
batteries that the company claims significantly reduce the space
that electronic devices need for batteries. By next year, Silver
expects to have invested in three or four more cleantech
companies.
Still,
he sees risks.
Insider
trading on green energy in Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Dianne
Feinstein offices
The
Wall Street Journal reported
about a staffer in Harry Reid’s office who nearly doubled his
$3,500 investment in a renewable energy firm in 2008. Sen. Reid
helped pass legislation that benefitted the firm.
-------------------------------
Congressional
Staffers Gain From Trading in Stocks
By
Brody
Mullins,
Tom
McGinty and
Jason
Zweig
WASHINGTON—Chris
Miller nearly doubled his $3,500 stock investment in a
renewable-energy firm in 2008. It was a perfectly legal bet, but he's
no ordinary investor.
Reid’s
spokesman tried to defend the staffer, Reid’s top energy policy
adviser, by asserting that he had no influence over tax incentives
for renewable energy firms.
-----------------------------------------
Under
federal securities law, of course, it is not important whether the
staffer had any influence over legislation, Sen. Reid or anyone or
anything else.
If
it can be shown that the staffer breached a duty of confidentiality
in using “inside information” as the basis for buying and selling
the stock, then he may very well be guilty of the crime of insider
trading.
In
May 2009, the Associated Press reported,
Federal
prosecutors and the FBI have been investigating possible illegal
insider trading by two Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement
attorneys who were in a position to receive sensitive information
about agency probes of public companies.
Similarly,
if the staffer had material information that the public didn’t have
and he took advantage of it in the buying and selling of securities,
he could have committed a serious crime — as well as anyone he may
have tipped off.
Reid’s
staffer has denied wrongdoing, but that should not be dispositive.
The
Department of Justice, FBI and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ought to be investigating the staffer as well as any other
potential insider trading violations described in the WSJ article.
At
the very least, the staffer should be afforded the same opportunity
as Martha Stewart to chat with federal investigators — that worked
out so well for her.
Don’t
expect this to happen, however, as Sen. Reid and other members of
Congress will no doubt quietly work to quash any investigation.
Big
Brother Has Turned Green
The
environmental movement has cultivated a warm and fuzzy public image,
but behind the smiley-face rhetoric of "sustainability" and
"conservation" lies a dark agenda. The Greens aim to
regulate your behavior, downsize your lifestyle, and invade the most
intimate aspects of your personal life.
In
this stunning exposé, Steve Milloy unveils the authoritarian impulse
underlying the Green crusade. Whether they're demanding that you turn
down your thermostat, stop driving your car, or engage in some other
senseless act of self-denial, the Greens are envisioning a grim
future for you marked by endless privation.
Steamrolling
nearly all opposition with its apocalyptic predictions of
environmental doom, the Green movement has gained influence
throughout American society--from schools and local planning boards
to the biggest corporations in the country. And their plans are much
more ambitious than you think, says Milloy. What the Greens really
seek, with increasing success, is to dictate the very parameters of
your daily life--where you can live, what transportation you can use,
what you can eat, and even how many children you can have.
Citing
the tactics and goals of Green groups as explained by their own
activists and leaders, Green Hell demonstrates:
*
How Green pressure campaigns threaten the safety of your home and
your car, and public health overall
* Why the election of
President Obama portends a giant leap forward for coercive Green
policies
* Why Greens obstruct the use of all forms of
energy--even the renewable sources they tout to the public
* How
wealthy Green elites stand to profit fabulously from the restrictions
and regulations they seek to impose on the rest of us
* How
Green pressure campaigns are hamstringing the military and
endangering our national security
* Why big business is not only
knuckling under to the Greens, but is aggressively promoting the
green agenda to the detriment of its own stockholders
* What you
can do to help stop the great Green machine
A
one-of-a-kind, comprehensive takedown of the entire environmental
movement, Green Hell will open your eyes to a looming threat
to our economy, our civil liberties, and the entire American way of
life.
'Green
Hell explains why Americans can't afford to fall for Al Gore's
`the debate is over' line on global warming. While we're all for the
environment, Green Hell explains why we need to oppose the
environmentalists."
--Fred
Barnes, Executive Editor, the Weekly Standard
"Green
Hell is the `inconvenient truth' on extremist, growth-killing
environmentalism. A must-read for those interested in keeping America
free and prosperous."
--Steve Forbes, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Forbes
"Regardless
of whether you believe global warming is a fraud, the fact is that
the current depression, the past spike in oil prices, and the coming
technology of electric cars are all going to solve whatever problem
exists. Liberals want to use climate change as an excuse to take over
the economy and regulate everything and this book exposes their
plans."
--Dick Morris, FOX News commentator and former
political consultant to Bill Clinton
"This
book describes why the world can't afford to fall for global warming
alarmism and environmental hysteria. Steve Milloy shows how to avoid
the environmentalists' vision of our future."
--VACLAV
KLAUS, President of the European Union and President of the Czech
Republic
"Free
market capitalism is still the best path to prosperity. Green Hell
is a must-read for anyone who wants to keep America on that path and
away from Soviet-style command-and-control environmentalism."
--Larry
Kudlow, Host, CNBC's The Kudlow Report
Former
President Barack Obama liked to portray himself as a politician
watching out for the little guy.
But
it looks like he spent much more time protecting his rich friends –
and manipulating the government to help make them a fortune.
It
was all part of a scheme that looks a lot like insider trading – or
what author Peter Schweizer calls “smash and grab.”
In
his new book, Secret
Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and
Enriches Family and Friends, Schweizer
lays out how Obama used government regulations to help lifelong pals
buy up companies for pennies on the dollar.
Basically,
the Obama Administration would threaten and devalue companies, and
Obama’s pals would be ready to swoop in and buy them on the cheap.
And
apparently nobody ever stopped to consider the effect that this plot
would have on ordinary shareholders – who lost millions – or the
employees at the companies.
In
an interview with Breitbart, Schweizer gives one shocking example –
the case of Marty Nesbitt, who has been described as Obama’s “best
friend.”
After
Obama was reelected on 2012, Nesbitt set up a private equity firm
called Vistria to invest in highly regulated industries – in other
words, industries that Obama and his administration can help control.
Schweizer
points to Vistria’s acquisition of online learning giant the
University of Phoenix as an example of Obama and Nesbitt working
together on a “smash and grab” deal.
The
Obama Administration had threatened to withhold GI Bill money from
the University of Phoenix over the quality of its education, sending
its share price tumbling.
Then,
Nesbitt and Vistria were able to purchase the university for “three
cents on the dollar,” Schweizer reports.
After
the deal was made, the Obama Administration withdrew its threat to
withhold federal funds.
Schweizer
says Obama repeated the strategy throughout his presidency to enrich
liberal billionaires like Tom Steyer and George Soros, who have both
worked to ruin current President Donald Trump.
“Barack
Obama smashes coal companies, [and] what do these guys do? They go
in, they buy them for pennies on the dollar, and when the regulatory
weight is lifted, their valuations increase, and they make a lot of
money, and you see that pattern in all of these industries,”
Shweizer said.
And
what happens to other shareholders – the ones who aren’t friends
with Obama? They’re left holding the bag when the companies are
devalued.
Schweizer
says that some of the ill-gotten gains realized by Obama’s friends
eventually found their way to the Obama Foundation.
It’s
a scheme that absolutely cries out for a federal investigation. But
with so many Obama puppets still left in the government, we won’t
be holding our breath.
HOW
QUID PRO QUO WORKS AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
How
do you give payola, funded by working class taxpayers, to
millionaires that don't need it, to pay kick-backs for funding
Obama's political marketing?
Easy:
You use the U.S. Department of Energy as the world's biggest
political slush-fund. This way, you get to pay bribes IN PLAIN SIGHT!
The
Department of Energy bosses get to claim everything is on the "up
and up" but EVERY SINGLE TIME, only the political campaign
financiers get the money and their competitors get sabotaged. Neat
trick, right?
Here
is how it works:
Quid
pro quo ("something
for something" in Latin[2])
is a Latin
phrase used in English
to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is
contingent upon the other; "a favor for a favor". Phrases
with similar meanings include: "give and take", "tit
for tat", "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch
yours", and "one hand washes the other". Other
languages use other phrases for the same purpose.
Corruption
in politics at the Department of Energy arises from the mismatch on
Capitol Hill: squadrons of well-paid, experienced lobbyists versus
DOE offices where aides are overworked, underpaid and have to depend
on those lobbyists for information about issues. We want to see DOE
offices with more aides, supervised by FBI agents, who would get
better pay, to keep them on the Hill longer while they develop their
own expertise. We would also close the metaphorical revolving door,
through which staffers and lawmakers travel to make more money as
lobbyists.
The
need for campaign finance reform has always been an urgent one. The
quid pro quo of shadow money and special interest campaign financing
is at the root of corruption in this country, particularly at the
Department of Energy. When government uses millions of
taxpayer dollars to rent a bond hastily acquired and for no clear
purpose from a ‘party financier’, that is the spectre of campaign
finance related corruption showing itself. When
construction companies that finance political campaigns to the tune
of millions are being awarded public work contracts worth billions
under questionable public tendering rules, that is campaign
finance related corruption. When a branding company that
provided ‘free’ billboards to a political campaign is given the
lion’s share of billboard and branding contracts under a new
government, we see the spectre of corruption. And then of
course there is the issue of abuse of state resources for
campaigning, something we seem to have come full Animal Farm on.
Elon
Musk, Solyndra, Fisker, Abound and over a hundred other wire
transfers from the Department of Energy were quid-pro-quo payoffs to
Obama financiers. The layers of the deals were complex but the money
always ended up in the same few pockets.
The
Department of Energy has a massive fake due diligence program which
spends a hundred times more time and money than any bank undertakes
to provide funds. All of that due diligence is a fraud. It is a
smoke-screen to provide the appearance of "proper review"
when, in each and every case, the funds were covertly already
arranged in a back room deal.
All
of those people that work on those due diligence efforts must feel
like fools. Their work is pointless because the deals were already
done in smoke-filled back rooms at Perkins Coie, Wilson Sonsini and
Covington Burling lobbyist buildings. All of the Department of Energy
staff own the stock of the company that "wins" the
government cash and most of them leave the Department of Energy,
right after the money is transferred, and go to work at that company
or it's suppliers.
It
is an EPIC crime!
Now,
the need for reform is even more urgent, particularly considering the
complexity of how capital moves in an oil and gas economy and the
impact of that capital on political decision-making. (ie:
"...One emerging party, for example, has been against
renegotiation of the oil contract with Exxon, arguing that we should
accept it and guard against exploitative arrangements with future
contracts. When the Department of Energy recently revealed
that it had recently hired a US firm to do what should have been done
years ago, revise the decades-old Petroleum (Exploration and
Production) Act, it was casually revealed that the local firm the US
company had partnered with is owned by the Presidential Candidate of
the very new party that has – along with the PPP and APNU+AFC –
refused to consider contract renegotiation, even in the wake of the
damning Global Witness report....")
By
breaking the close bonds between lobbyists and congressional offices,
lawmakers might become less beholden to the lobbyists' employers —
the corporations, unions and special interests that underwrite
American politics.
As
value is in the eye of the beholder, the something being exchanged
for another something may not be equal in value, instead skewed based
on one’s perspective.
Democrats and their media masters
are salivating over now having what they believe is a smoking gun to
take down President Trump. Notwithstanding that this must be their
hundredth smoking gun, and that each previous one misfired, they are
hot on impeachment over this Latin term “quid pro quo.”
The
Washington
Post, happy to let democracy die in darkness while they endeavor
to overturn the last presidential election, is giddy over quid pro
quo.
In politics, quid pro quo is standard operating
procedure. Take campaign contributions, for example. I contribute to
Senator X because I want Senator X to support legislation favorable
to my business interests. My money, something of value, will be
exchanged for a tax break or new regulation, which is usually of
greater value to me, as a quid pro quo, and perfectly legal and
acceptable.
A bundler for a presidential candidate raises
millions of dollars for said candidate. If that candidate wins the
presidency, the bundler may have a choice of any number of
ambassadorships around the world. The value of the campaign cash is
exchanged for a four-year stint living in the American embassy in
London or Paris, attending parties and banquets. Something for
something.
Members of Congress do the quid pro quo thing
amongst themselves all the time. I’ll vote for your bill to build a
military facility in your district if you support my bill creating an
NSA data center in my district. In Congress it’s called "horse
trading."
What about economic sanctions? The Council
on Foreign Relations, also knows as Club Deep State, explains how
economic sanctions work.
Governments
and multinational bodies impose economic sanctions to try to alter
the strategic decisions of state and nonstate actors that threaten
their interests or violate international norms of behavior.
Economic
sanctions are defined as the withdrawal of customary trade and
financial relations for foreign- and security-policy
purposes.
Sanctions take a variety of forms, including
travel bans, asset freezes, arms embargoes, capital restraints,
foreign aid reductions, and trade restrictions.
Quid
pro quo, something for something. If you want American money in terms
of trade or aide, you had better behave, meaning do as we tell you to
do in your political and economic decisions.
Here are a
few examples of quid pro quo economic sanctions.
Economic
sanctions were put in place against Cuba in 1958. Similar sanctions
have been in place against North Korea since the Korean War. Economic
sanctions have been in effect against Venezuela since 2015 and Sudan
since 1997. These are quid pro quo moves -- behave, give up your
nukes, provide human rights, or we will punish you economically.
Something for something.
Several of the ladies of the
Squad hinted at cutting off aid to Israel after one of the gals
was denied entry to Israel last summer. Presidential candidate Bernie
Sanders threatened, “Israel would have to ‘fundamentally
change’ its relationship to Gaza to receive aid if he is elected.”
Something for something, quid pro quo.
Three Democratic
senators wrote
a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general,
Expressing
concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical
to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support
for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake.
They
wanted something for something, quid pro quo.
Then
Vice-President Joe Biden, in a now well-known interview,
acknowledged,
“I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the
prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of
a b-tch. He got fired.” Quid pro quo, something for something.
So,
what did Trump do? He asked the Ukrainian President to investigate
corruption, specifically foreign interference in a U.S. election.
Biden was an afterthought in the conversation, but his pay to play
corruption is fair game, whether or not he is running for president.
Until he secures the Democratic party nomination, he is not Trump’s
political opponent. What if Bernie or Pocahontas win the
nomination?
Trump has a constitutional duty as president
to investigate corruption. The U.S. and Ukraine share a treaty
ratified in 1999 for “Mutual assistance in criminal
matters.”
There is also “The United Nations Convention
against Corruption” of 2003, signed
by both Ukraine and the U.S. And then finally is President
Trump’s Executive
Order signed in December 2017, “Blocking the property of
persons involved in serious human rights abuse or corruption.” Note
that last word.
Trump is doing his job as president, yet
the Democrats and media howl in outrage over a supposed quid pro quo.
But something for something is standard operating procedure in
Washington, D.C., even to the point of corruption as Joe Biden
illustrated in Ukraine, China, and possibly Romania.
The
psychologists call this Democratic caterwauling “projection,”
accusing others of doing what you are guilty of. Trying to impeach
President Trump over a quid pro quo would be like impeaching him
because he didn’t keep a campaign promise, something every elected
official, past and present, is guilty of.
Since
its ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed
concern regarding corruption or the appearance of corruption stemming
from political quid pro quo arrangements and the deleterious
consequences it may have on citizens’ democratic behavior. However,
no standard has been set as to what constitutes “the appearance of
corruption,” as the Court was and continues to be vague in its
definition. As a result, campaign finance cases after Buckley have
relied on public opinion polls as evidence of perceptions of
corruption, and these polls indicate that the public generally
perceives high levels of corruption in government. The present study
investigates the actual impact that perceptions of corruption have on
individuals’ levels of political participation. Adapting the
standard socioeconomic status model developed most fully by Verba and
Nie (1972), an extended beta-binomial regression estimated using
maximum likelihood is performed, utilizing unique data from the 2009
University of Texas’ Money and Politics survey. The results of this
study indicate that individuals who perceive higher levels of quid
pro quo corruption participate more in politics, on average, than
those who perceive lower levels of corruption.
Quid
pro quo is not a difficult concept to understand. Too bad the media
doesn’t endeavor to investigate and explain it. Your politicians
don't work for you, they work for their own insider trading stock
market holdings for themselves!
More
evidence of the charged crimes and harms has now been filed in this
case than in any other corruption matter currently in US. Courts.
More third party investigative, regulatory, public news outlet and
forensic reports have now confirmed Plaintiffs assertions than in any
other modern case. More proofs and charges of active political bias
and justice blockades by law enforcement and regulatory agencies have
been proven, this year, in Congressional hearings, than in any other
year in history. It is now virtually impossible for Defendants to
deny the occurrence of the issues charged herein. Any effort, by
Defendants, to do so, would be viewed by the entire public
constituency, and any Jury, to be a laughable attempt, by government
lawyers, to further an overt cover-up of well-documented corruption.
The funding of Plaintiff by one part of the Federal government was
obsoleting Tesla Motors failed, toxic, explosive, child-labor-based,
corrupt car company, which other corrupt Federal officials covertly
OWNED! Those federal government officials used federal government
resources (paid for by Plaintiff and other taxpayers) to attack and
destroy Plaintiff because they had to CHEAT RATHER THAN COMPETE!