A high-ranking FBI official talked of La Cosa Clinton on Sunday — as he placed the Democratic political family in the same category as the Gambinos, Colombos and Luccheses.
“The Clintons, that’s a crime family,” declared former New York FBI chief James Kallstrom in a radio interview.“It’s like organized crime, basically. The Clinton Foundation is a cesspool.”
He echoed many of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s talking points as he described the Clintons as dishonest, greedy and scheming, during the interview with supermarket billionaire John Catsimatidis on AM970.
“It’s just outrageous how Hillary Clinton sold her office for money,” said Kallstrom, who has long been a critic of the Clintons and President Obama. “And she’s a pathological liar, and she’s always been a liar. And God forbid if we put someone like that in the White House.”
In another interview Sunday, Kallstrom said the handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails by FBI Director James Comey was sowing discord among rank-and-file FBI agents.
“There’s a major, major morale problem. I mean, it’s like a boiling cauldron,” Kallstrom told Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine” program Saturday night. “I don’t know that ‘cause I talk to everybody down there, but I’ve talked to enough people . . . and they are totally disgusted with him.”
Kallstrom also ripped Attorney General Loretta Lynch, saying she never had a “real investigation” into the emails.
Thanks to Daniel Harper and Bruce Golding.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Al Capone: Chicago's King of Crime
Al Capone: Chicago's King of Crime.
Crime writer Nate Hendley examines the life and crimes of Al Capone
, the world’s most famous gangster, during his brief reign over corrupt, Prohibition-era Chicago.
A fresh, personal look at this iconic figure.
Crime writer Nate Hendley examines the life and crimes of Al Capone
, the world’s most famous gangster, during his brief reign over corrupt, Prohibition-era Chicago.A fresh, personal look at this iconic figure.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Crime Commission to Focus on Public Officials Would Protect the Voters from Corrupt Politicians
Though they've behaved admirably in a year of extreme electoral bellicosity and refrained from personal attacks and embarrassing comments, the two men running for attorney general of Pennsylvania have been rewarded with both media and voter indifference. The collective apathy is no doubt due to the unprecedented stench and fog of a bitter and historically polarizing presidential election. Thus the race for the highest law enforcement office in the commonwealth has become an afterthought in a state that is a hotbed of public corruption.
More than a hundred years ago, Lincoln Steffens called Philadelphia "corrupt and contented." Its citizens, he added, were "supine," "asleep," and "complacent" for accepting such a thoroughly corrupt system. Many disgusted Pennsylvanians believe Steffens' bleak assessment can now be applied to the entire state.
Voters have numerous examples to choose from, but for us no better instance of statewide complacency exists than when the Pennsylvania Crime Commission (PCC) was defunded and its office shuttered in the aftermath of its investigation and subsequent conviction of a corrupt attorney general in 1994. Civic outrage should have been deafening, but in fact, was nonexistent thereby underscoring the adage that no good deed goes unpunished in Pennsylvania. The abolishment of the PCC took away the one agency that was primarily tasked with investigating public corruption in the commonwealth.
No surprise then that in recent years voters have witnessed three state Supreme Court justices either convicted of crimes or forced to retire; two attorneys general convicted of violating the public trust; two former state treasurers charged with crime; a congressman awaiting sentencing for corruption; several leaders of the General Assembly who have served time in prison; and the convictions of a number of other county and local officials. The list is long and now dwarfs the number of Mafiosi and other organized crime figures law enforcement has convicted and sent to prison. The upshot is a thoroughly disgusted electorate and continued erosion of public confidence in government and the democratic process.
Citizens deserve better, but the first step in acquiring elected officials we admire and respect demands an electorate that is knowledgeable, involved, and resolute in electing candidates who are trustworthy and have demonstrated the political will to carry out their campaign promises and official duties.
The current candidates for attorney general - Democrat Josh Shapiro and Republican John Rafferty - are experienced legislators and seasoned politicians, but their anticorruption credentials are far from overwhelming. Equally important, what can we gather of their moral backbone and commitment to do the right thing when duty confronts forces that threaten their political self-interest?
Sadly, some of the attorneys general in recent years have been no better ethically than the miscreants and lawbreakers their offices are charged with investigating. If the top law enforcement officer in the commonwealth is corrupt or reticent to investigate a colleague of the same party or a financial contributor, who is going to protect the citizens' welfare and interests?
We suggest that one way to measure the current candidates' commitment to root out systemic corruption in the state would be their support for some type of government agency whose sole purpose would be to investigate and prosecute public corruption. Regardless of whether it is called a commission, a task force, or a strike force, the call for a politically independent mechanism staffed with experienced attorneys and investigators, and capable of establishing a sophisticated intelligence program designed to ferret out illegal shenanigans, would go a long way toward demonstrating a candidate's commitment to stamp out corruption. Such a commitment would help regain the public's trust and show one's support for the principle of government of laws and not people.
We would hope, however, that support for such an agency be more than just a glib talking point at campaign stops, but a fully embraced concept implying the necessary authority and resources to conduct real investigations. Such an agency must:
Voters unsure which of the candidates for attorney general have the political will to carry out the fight against public corruption should consider each candidate's reply to this question:
"Would you support the establishment of an independent state agency to root out public corruption in Pennsylvania?"
Thanks to Allen M. Hornblum (ahornblum@comcast.net), who was a commissioner, and Frederick T. Martens (PCC2215@yahoo.com), who was the executive director, of the Pennsylvania Crime Commission.
More than a hundred years ago, Lincoln Steffens called Philadelphia "corrupt and contented." Its citizens, he added, were "supine," "asleep," and "complacent" for accepting such a thoroughly corrupt system. Many disgusted Pennsylvanians believe Steffens' bleak assessment can now be applied to the entire state.
Voters have numerous examples to choose from, but for us no better instance of statewide complacency exists than when the Pennsylvania Crime Commission (PCC) was defunded and its office shuttered in the aftermath of its investigation and subsequent conviction of a corrupt attorney general in 1994. Civic outrage should have been deafening, but in fact, was nonexistent thereby underscoring the adage that no good deed goes unpunished in Pennsylvania. The abolishment of the PCC took away the one agency that was primarily tasked with investigating public corruption in the commonwealth.
No surprise then that in recent years voters have witnessed three state Supreme Court justices either convicted of crimes or forced to retire; two attorneys general convicted of violating the public trust; two former state treasurers charged with crime; a congressman awaiting sentencing for corruption; several leaders of the General Assembly who have served time in prison; and the convictions of a number of other county and local officials. The list is long and now dwarfs the number of Mafiosi and other organized crime figures law enforcement has convicted and sent to prison. The upshot is a thoroughly disgusted electorate and continued erosion of public confidence in government and the democratic process.
Citizens deserve better, but the first step in acquiring elected officials we admire and respect demands an electorate that is knowledgeable, involved, and resolute in electing candidates who are trustworthy and have demonstrated the political will to carry out their campaign promises and official duties.
The current candidates for attorney general - Democrat Josh Shapiro and Republican John Rafferty - are experienced legislators and seasoned politicians, but their anticorruption credentials are far from overwhelming. Equally important, what can we gather of their moral backbone and commitment to do the right thing when duty confronts forces that threaten their political self-interest?
Sadly, some of the attorneys general in recent years have been no better ethically than the miscreants and lawbreakers their offices are charged with investigating. If the top law enforcement officer in the commonwealth is corrupt or reticent to investigate a colleague of the same party or a financial contributor, who is going to protect the citizens' welfare and interests?
We suggest that one way to measure the current candidates' commitment to root out systemic corruption in the state would be their support for some type of government agency whose sole purpose would be to investigate and prosecute public corruption. Regardless of whether it is called a commission, a task force, or a strike force, the call for a politically independent mechanism staffed with experienced attorneys and investigators, and capable of establishing a sophisticated intelligence program designed to ferret out illegal shenanigans, would go a long way toward demonstrating a candidate's commitment to stamp out corruption. Such a commitment would help regain the public's trust and show one's support for the principle of government of laws and not people.
We would hope, however, that support for such an agency be more than just a glib talking point at campaign stops, but a fully embraced concept implying the necessary authority and resources to conduct real investigations. Such an agency must:
- Be politically independent and have the personnel with skill, will, and patience to undertake fair and sensitive investigations.
- Have investigative resources necessary for pursuing successful investigations such as an ability to gather emails, bank accounts, and phone records, as well as both subpoena power and the power to grant immunity from prosecution for potential witnesses.
- Be given law enforcement status to access data bases, exchange information with other agencies, conduct electronic surveillance, and bring witnesses before a grand jury.
- Not be in a position to be threatened with budget cuts, terminations, or political retribution for carrying out its official duties. Many of us are all too familiar with timid investigative bodies that go after the low hanging fruit and refrain from taking on the real political powers.
Voters unsure which of the candidates for attorney general have the political will to carry out the fight against public corruption should consider each candidate's reply to this question:
"Would you support the establishment of an independent state agency to root out public corruption in Pennsylvania?"
Thanks to Allen M. Hornblum (ahornblum@comcast.net), who was a commissioner, and Frederick T. Martens (PCC2215@yahoo.com), who was the executive director, of the Pennsylvania Crime Commission.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Approval to Use Force Granted to Elite Task Unit Confronting Street Gangs
El Salvador's government has praised an elite unit tasked with confronting street gangs, but this strategy is unlikely to translate into long-term security gains in a country wracked by violence.
Vice President Óscar Ortiz said on October 20 that the Special Reactionary Forces (Fuerzas Especializadas de Reacción El Salvador - FES) had proven particularly efficient against the gangs during its first six months of operations, reported La Prensa Gráfica. He also gave the unit his blessing to use force when necessary.
"If in this moment, at this point, in these circumstances, the use of force isn't the way to go, then what is? These are hard and complicated times, but that's how we should face them, with determination," Ortiz said while addressing the FES during a ceremony. "People have asked me, 'vice president, what if everything that is currently being done is later challenged in five years?', and I answered that God willing and for the good of this nation, I hope that never happens."
According to National Police Director Howard Cotto, FES has arrested 1,500 individuals, including 44 of the 100 most wanted gang leaders in the country. The force also seized 349 weapons and 350 kilos of cocaine in the past six months.
The government has credited the crackdown on a drop in El Salvador's murder rate, which was the highest in the world last year. However, the country's principal street gangs, the MS13 and the Barrio 18, say the decline is due to a non-aggression pact they signed at the end of March.
Meanwhile, Defense Minister David Munguía Payés admitted that the use of the military for public security could lead to human rights abuses, as some soldiers "broke protocols."
The FES was launched in April 2016 with 400 police officers and 600 soldiers, and was tasked with three official objectives: dismantle organized crime structures, arrest the 100 most prominent gang leaders with pending arrest warrants, and capture individuals accused of homicide.
Upon its creation, the government insisted on the elite unit's intense training and heavy weaponry. According to the journal La Página, the force's equipment includes military-grade weapons such as grenade launchers and AK-47 rifles.
InSight Crime Analysis
The vice president's comments indicate that El Salvador does not intend to soften its hardline policy against the gangs any time soon. This aggressive approach is a major reason why police and gangs have engaged in an average of nearly two confrontations per day this year.
While it is understandable that the government feels it has to increase pressure against the gangs given their growing capacities, including access to military-grade equipment, it is doubtful that the emphasis on the use of force is a sustainable way to fight crime. As InSight Crime has previously noted, a more comprehensive policy encompassing both security and social measures would likely be a more viable long-term option.
Thanks to Tristan Clavel.
Vice President Óscar Ortiz said on October 20 that the Special Reactionary Forces (Fuerzas Especializadas de Reacción El Salvador - FES) had proven particularly efficient against the gangs during its first six months of operations, reported La Prensa Gráfica. He also gave the unit his blessing to use force when necessary.
"If in this moment, at this point, in these circumstances, the use of force isn't the way to go, then what is? These are hard and complicated times, but that's how we should face them, with determination," Ortiz said while addressing the FES during a ceremony. "People have asked me, 'vice president, what if everything that is currently being done is later challenged in five years?', and I answered that God willing and for the good of this nation, I hope that never happens."
According to National Police Director Howard Cotto, FES has arrested 1,500 individuals, including 44 of the 100 most wanted gang leaders in the country. The force also seized 349 weapons and 350 kilos of cocaine in the past six months.
The government has credited the crackdown on a drop in El Salvador's murder rate, which was the highest in the world last year. However, the country's principal street gangs, the MS13 and the Barrio 18, say the decline is due to a non-aggression pact they signed at the end of March.
Meanwhile, Defense Minister David Munguía Payés admitted that the use of the military for public security could lead to human rights abuses, as some soldiers "broke protocols."
The FES was launched in April 2016 with 400 police officers and 600 soldiers, and was tasked with three official objectives: dismantle organized crime structures, arrest the 100 most prominent gang leaders with pending arrest warrants, and capture individuals accused of homicide.
Upon its creation, the government insisted on the elite unit's intense training and heavy weaponry. According to the journal La Página, the force's equipment includes military-grade weapons such as grenade launchers and AK-47 rifles.
InSight Crime Analysis
The vice president's comments indicate that El Salvador does not intend to soften its hardline policy against the gangs any time soon. This aggressive approach is a major reason why police and gangs have engaged in an average of nearly two confrontations per day this year.
While it is understandable that the government feels it has to increase pressure against the gangs given their growing capacities, including access to military-grade equipment, it is doubtful that the emphasis on the use of force is a sustainable way to fight crime. As InSight Crime has previously noted, a more comprehensive policy encompassing both security and social measures would likely be a more viable long-term option.
Thanks to Tristan Clavel.
Friday, October 21, 2016
FBI Statement on General Election Fraud for #PresidentialElection on #November8th
United States Attorney Daniel G. Bogden announced that Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Carla Higginbotham will lead the efforts of his Office in connection with the Justice Department’s nationwide Election Day Program for the upcoming November 8, 2016, general elections. AUSA Higginbotham has been appointed to serve as the District Election Officer (DEO) for the District of Nevada, and in that capacity is responsible for overseeing the District’s handling of complaints of election fraud and voting rights abuses in consultation with Justice Department Headquarters in Washington.
“Every citizen must be able to vote without interference or discrimination and to have that vote counted without it being stolen because of fraud,” stated U.S. Attorney Bogden.“The Department of Justice will act promptly and aggressively to protect the integrity of the election process.”
The Department of Justice has an important role in deterring election fraud and discrimination at the polls, and combating these violations whenever and wherever they occur. The Department’s long-standing Election Day Program furthers these goals, and also seeks to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the election process by providing local points of contact within the Department for the public to report possible election fraud and voting rights violations while the polls are open on election day.
Federal law protects against such crimes as intimidating or bribing voters, buying and selling votes, impersonating voters, altering vote tallies, stuffing ballot boxes, and marking ballots for voters against their wishes or without their input. It also contains special protections for the rights of voters and provides that they can vote free from acts that intimidate or harass them. For example, actions of persons designed to interrupt or intimidate voters at polling places by questioning or challenging them, or by photographing or videotaping them, under the pretext that these are actions to uncover illegal voting may violate federal voting rights law. Further, federal law protects the right of voters to mark their own ballot or to be assisted by a person of their choice.
On Election Day, Nov. 8, there will be command posts in Reno and Las Vegas staffed by members of the Nevada Election Integrity Task Force, which includes the FBI, Nevada Secretary of State’s Office and U.S. Attorney’s Office. They will assist with the investigation of any complaints of election fraud or voting rights abuses, and will ensure that such complaints are directed to the appropriate authorities.
Complaints may be filed by a number of ways:
We are pleased to again be a part of this most important effort to ensure the 2016 election is administered fairly. The franchise is the cornerstone of American democracy. We all must ensure that those who are entitled to the franchise exercise it if they choose, and that those who seek to corrupt it are brought to justice.
“Every citizen must be able to vote without interference or discrimination and to have that vote counted without it being stolen because of fraud,” stated U.S. Attorney Bogden.“The Department of Justice will act promptly and aggressively to protect the integrity of the election process.”
The Department of Justice has an important role in deterring election fraud and discrimination at the polls, and combating these violations whenever and wherever they occur. The Department’s long-standing Election Day Program furthers these goals, and also seeks to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the election process by providing local points of contact within the Department for the public to report possible election fraud and voting rights violations while the polls are open on election day.
Federal law protects against such crimes as intimidating or bribing voters, buying and selling votes, impersonating voters, altering vote tallies, stuffing ballot boxes, and marking ballots for voters against their wishes or without their input. It also contains special protections for the rights of voters and provides that they can vote free from acts that intimidate or harass them. For example, actions of persons designed to interrupt or intimidate voters at polling places by questioning or challenging them, or by photographing or videotaping them, under the pretext that these are actions to uncover illegal voting may violate federal voting rights law. Further, federal law protects the right of voters to mark their own ballot or to be assisted by a person of their choice.
On Election Day, Nov. 8, there will be command posts in Reno and Las Vegas staffed by members of the Nevada Election Integrity Task Force, which includes the FBI, Nevada Secretary of State’s Office and U.S. Attorney’s Office. They will assist with the investigation of any complaints of election fraud or voting rights abuses, and will ensure that such complaints are directed to the appropriate authorities.
Complaints may be filed by a number of ways:
- By completing the Election Law Violation Form on the Nevada Secretary of State’s website: http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/election-information/resources/report-potential-election-law-violation;
- By calling the NV Secretary of State at (775) 684-5718;
- By calling the FBI in Las Vegas at (702) 385-1281 and asking for FBI Special Agent Michael B. Elliott.
- Complaints about possible violations of the federal voting rights laws can be made directly to the Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section in Washington by telephone at (800) 253-3931 or (202) 307-2767, by fax at (202) 307-3961, by email to voting.section@usdoj.govEmail links icon, or by complaint form at http://www.justice.gov/crt/complaint/votintake/index.php
- By contacting our United States Attorney’s Office Points of Contact. In southern Nevada, AUSA Nick Dickinson can be reached at (702) 388-6336. In northern Nevada, AUSA Carla Higginbotham can be reached by contacting (775) 784-5438.
We are pleased to again be a part of this most important effort to ensure the 2016 election is administered fairly. The franchise is the cornerstone of American democracy. We all must ensure that those who are entitled to the franchise exercise it if they choose, and that those who seek to corrupt it are brought to justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)