U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan said the plaintiffs’ allegations “narrowly articulate a reasonable basis” for lawsuits to continue against Saudi Arabia for their role in 9/11 attacks.
The post Court Rules There Is Enough Evidence for Victims to Sue Saudi Arabia for Role in 9/11 appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
Martin Shkreli might not be able to sell that Wu Tang Clan album after Federal prosecutors late Thursday moved to revoke his bail, claiming that the former pharmaceutical company CEO and purported “most hated man in the world” repeatedly threatened and harassed former secretary of state Hillary Clinton on line.
Specifically, the Feds were incensed by what Shkreli says was intended to be a humorous post on his Facebook page offering a $5,000 bounty to anyone who could “grab” some of Clinton’s hair for him during her upcoming book tour.
"Shkreli"s latest threat is concerning not only because it has required a significant expenditure of resources by the United States Secret Service, which is charged with protecting Secretary Clinton, but also because there is a significant risk that one of his many social media followers or others who learn of his offers through the media will take his statements seriously — as has happened previously — and act on them," prosecutors wrote in a legal motion.”
US District Court Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, who presided over Shkreli’s trial which ended in him being convicted on three of eight counts of securities fraud-related offenses, ordered his legal team to file a response. She scheduled a Sept. 14 hearing for legal arguments on the issue.
Here"s the post in question:
True to form, Shkreli trolled prosecutors in response published to his Facebook page: "Hillary Cliinton"s presumptive agents are hard at work. It was just a prank, bro! But still, lock HER up. Spend your resources investigating her, not me!!"
According to USA Today, prosecutors also said Shkreli had continued to harass journalist Lauren Duca.
Shkreli had previously been banned from Twitter earlier this year, allegedly for harassing Duca, a freelance writer who had authored an opinion essay that criticized President-elect Trump. The day before his verdict, Shkreli wrote in a Facebook post: "trial"s over tomorrow, b****. Then if I"m acquitted, I get to f*** Lauren Duca."
Secret Service agents sought to question Shkreki about his post, but he declined to meet with them, prosecutors wrote.
In what sounds to us like they’re reaching for justification, prosecutors cited a USA Today story recounting how a graduate student solved a complex mathematical proof after Shkreli offered a $40,000 scholarship to anyone who could.
"Shkreli"s own prior actions, and his influence over others who have previously acted in reliance on his statements, demonstrate why the government views his latest actions with concern," prosecutors concluded in their bail revocation motion.
According to Bloomberg, Shkreli edited the Facebook post, saying it was "satire, meant for humor” after it was reported in the media.
His lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, said that while Shkreli’s posts may have been “inappropriate,” his client didn’t intend to harm anybody.
“We take the matter seriously and intend to address the issue responsibly,” Benjamin Brafman, a lawyer for Shkreli, said in an email Thursday night. “However inappropriate some of Mr Shkreli’s postings may have been, we do not believe that he intended harm and do not believe that he poses a danger to the community.”
Is it really any surprise that federal prosecutors in Brooklyn, where Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was based and where Clinton friend (co-conspirator?) and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch once served as US attorney, are unwilling to let a joke about Clinton slide? Even if Shkreli remains free, the complaint is sure to cost him tens of thousands more in legal fees. Perhaps that"s the ultimate goal.
If we had a dime for every kooky, left-wing theory we"ve heard alleging some vast corporate conspiracy to exploit the treasures of the earth, destroy the environment and poison people with unknown carcinogens all while buying off politicians to cover their tracks, we would be rich. The problem, of course, is that sometimes the kooky conspiracy theories prove to be completely accurate.
Lets take the case of the $60 billion ag-chemicals powerhouse, Monsanto, and their controversial herbicide, Roundup as an example. For those who aren"t familiar, Roundup Ready is Monsanto’s blockbuster weedkiller, credited with transforming U.S. agriculture, with a majority of farm production now using genetically modified seeds resistant to the chemical.
For years the company has assured farmers that their weed killing product was absolutely safe to use. As proof, Monsanto touted the approval of the chemical by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
That said, newly unsealed court documents released earlier today seemingly reveal a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the EPA to work in concert to kill and/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization"s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)....more on this later.
But, before we get into the competing studies, here is a brief look at the "extensive" work that Monsanto and the EPA did prior to originally declaring Roundup safe for use (hint: not much). As the excerpt below reveals, the EPA effectively declared Roundup safe for use without even conducting tests on the actual formulation, but instead relying on industry research on just one of the product"s active ingredients.
"EPA"s minimal standards do not require human health data submissions related to the formulated product - here, Roundup. Instead, EPA regulations require only studies and data that relate to the active ingredient, which in the case of Roundup is glyphosate. As a result, the body of scientific literature EPA has reviewed is not only primarily provided by the industry, but it also only considers one part of the chemical ingredients that make up Roundup."
Meanwhile, if that"s not enough for you, Donna Farmer, Monsanto"s lead toxicologist, even admitted in her deposition that she "cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer" because "[w]e [Monsanto] have not done the carcinogenicity studies with Roundup."
And just in case you"re the super skeptical type, here is Farmer"s actual email, from back in 2009, which seems pretty clear:
"you cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer..we have not done carcinogenicity studies with "Roundup".
And while the revelations above are quite damning by themselves, this is where things get really interesting.
In early 2015, once it became clear that the World Health Organization"s IARC was working on their own independent study of Roundup, Monsanto immediately launched their own efforts to preemptively discredit any results that might be deemed "inconvenient".
That said, Monsanto, the $60 billion behemoth, couldn"t possibly afford the $250,000 bill that would come with conducting a legitimate scientific study led by accredited scientists. Instead, they decided to "ghost-write" key sections of their report themselves and plotted to then have the independent scientists just "sign their names so to speak."
"A less expensive/more palatable approach might be to involve experts only for the areas of contention, epidemiology and possibly MOA (depending on what comes out of the IARC meeting), and we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections...but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak."
Finally, when all else fails, you call in those "special favors" in Washington D.C. that you"ve paid handsomely for over the years.
And that"s where Jess Rowland, the EPA"s Deputy Division Director for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Agency"s Cancer Assessment Review Committee, comes in to assure you that he"s fully exploiting his role as the "chair of the CARC" to kill any potentially damaging research..."if I can kill this I should get a medal."
All of which begs the question of whether the D.C. swamp is just too large to be drained.
A Judicial Watch lawsuit seeking records related to potential collusion between the Justice Department and Hillary Clinton operatives during her email investigation has resulted in a federal judge issuing a rare order instructing the DOJ to preserve the Gmail records of the now infamous Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik. The order came from U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, a Clinton appointee, and gave the DOJ until this morning to report back on steps taken to preserve the personal email accounts of Kadzik. Per Politico:
"Defendant shall take all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure the preservation of all agency records and potential agency records between the dates of December 1, 2014 and November 7, 2016 in any personal email account of Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter Kadzik. Any question about whether a record is an agency record shall be resolved in favor of it being an agency record."
Of course, as we pointed out back in the fall, various emails provided by WikiLeaks exposed Kadzik repeatedly colluding with the Clinton campaign by providing campaign manager, and long-time friend, John Podesta with inside information on the DOJ"s investigation of Hillary"s email scandal. Moreover, proving just how close they were, in a , Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign saying that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail”...now that"s a bond that lasts.
Of course, in response to Judge Sullivan"s order, the DOJ promptly noted that Mr. Kadzik was unable to locate any work-related emails on his Gmail account...well how convenient.
"It is the government’s understanding that Mr. Kadzik has located no agency records or potential agency records in his Gmail account and that, therefore, there are no such documents to preserve. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution and consistent with the preservation order that Judicial Watch seeks, the government has instructed Mr. Kadzik to preserve any potential agency records in his Gmail account, should any exist, and Mr. Kadzik has agreed to do so," the Justice Department filing said.
And since we have no doubt that Kadzik performed a thorough, impartial scan of his Gmail account while resisting the urge to delete "inconvenient" records, we assume that he simply overlooked this email which provided a very timely "Heads up" to John Podesta regarding confidential information about DOJ hearings and FOIA requests. Simple, honest mistake, no doubt.
How long can this farce continue on before government officials are finally forced to do what private corporations have been forced to do for years, namely requiring that their employees use secured, archived email systems for official communications and impose stiff penalties for non-compliance. Seems simple enough.
