- U.N. investigator at U.S. detention center at Guantanamo says detainees face cruel treatment POLITICO
- Conditions at Guantánamo Are Cruel and Inhuman, U.N. Investigation Finds The New York Times
- First UN investigator at US detention center at Guantanamo says detainees face cruel treatment The Associated Press
- USA: UN Special Rapporteur’s findings reinforce urgent need to close Guantánamo and provide redress for past and present detainees Amnesty International
- UN investigator says U.S. should apologize for “cruel, inhuman” treatment at Guantánamo Bay Axios
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Tag Archives: investigator
Prosecutors: Brian Walshe believed Ana Walshe was having an affair, hired investigator to follow her – Boston 25 News
- Prosecutors: Brian Walshe believed Ana Walshe was having an affair, hired investigator to follow her Boston 25 News
- Brian Walshe denied bail after prosecutor says he stood to gain $2.7 million in life insurance for the death of Ana Walshe CNN
- Brian Walshe hired investigator to follow wife before murder, suspected affair, prosecutor says CBS Boston
- Accused Killer Brian Walshe Suspected Wife Was Cheating: Prosecutors Patch
- Ana Walshe murder: Husband Brian Walshe hired private investigator, suspected she was cheating: prosecutor Fox News
- View Full Coverage on Google News
State actor involvement in Nord Stream pipeline attacks is ‘main scenario’, says Swedish investigator – Reuters
- State actor involvement in Nord Stream pipeline attacks is ‘main scenario’, says Swedish investigator Reuters
- Swedish Prosecutor Says State-Sponsored Group Still Most Likely Behind Nord Stream Blasts Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty
- Swedish Prosecutor Says May Be Difficult to Determine Who Blew up Nord Stream Pipelines U.S. News & World Report
- Ukraine updates: Unclear who sabotaged Nord Stream — Sweden DW (English)
- State actor involvement in Nord Stream pipeline attacks is ‘main scenario’, says Swedish investigator Yahoo News
- View Full Coverage on Google News
‘Does that mean that I am a suspect?’ Footage shows investigator asking Alex Murdaugh if he killed his wife and son – CNN
- ‘Does that mean that I am a suspect?’ Footage shows investigator asking Alex Murdaugh if he killed his wife and son CNN
- Maggie Murdaugh’s sister recounts Alex Murdaugh’s ‘strange’ comment after murders in tearful testimony Fox News
- Why Dr. Phil Says He Believes Alleged Killer Alex Murdaugh’s Body Language And Statements To Police Don’t ‘Hang Together’ Yahoo Entertainment
- Alex Murdaugh Intended to Die in Botched Labor Day Shooting, Lawyer Says The Daily Beast
- Murdaugh defense opens the door to Curtis Eddie Smith, judge reverses Greenville News
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Wisconsin GOP fires election investigator who pushed false fraud claims
The haphazard, year-old inquiry was marked by meetings with conspiracy theorists, violations of the state’s public records laws and a call by Gableman to explore the legally impossible task of decertifying the election results. It did not uncover evidence of widespread fraud, though Trump and Gableman tried to suggest otherwise.
“After having many members of our caucus reach out to me over the past several days, it is beyond clear to me that we only have one choice in this matter, and that’s to close the Office of Special Counsel,” Vos said in a written statement.
Vos has had a tenuous relationship with Trump, who supported the Wisconsin review but repeatedly pressed Vos to go further with it. Last week, Trump and Gableman endorsed the longtime speaker’s Republican primary opponent, with the former president holding a rally urging voters to throw out Vos.
Vos won Tuesday’s primary against Adam Steen, but just barely, claiming 51 percent of the vote. Steen had called for decertifying the election and labeled Vos, one of the most powerful Republicans in Wisconsin, a traitor.
The firing marked the end of a saga that began in June 2021 when Vos, acting under pressure from Trump, announced at the state Republican Party’s annual convention that he had hired Gableman. The retired judge had earlier claimed without evidence that the election had been stolen.
Gableman took months to set up his office and spent the early stage of his review performing online research from a public library in suburban Milwaukee. He toured the site of a frequently criticized GOP-led ballot review in Arizona and attended a seminar in South Dakota hosted by Mike Lindell, the MyPillow chief executive who has spouted false claims about the 2020 election.
As he pursued his review, Gableman claimed to be acting in a nonpartisan manner while attending Republican Party events and calling for the resignation of a Republican state senator who had lambasted his review as a charade. Gableman criticized the way the nonpartisan director of the state’s elections commission dresses and monitored the social media posts of others. He or one of his aides drafted a memo speculating that a city employee in Milwaukee was a Democrat because she had a nose ring, liked snakes and lived with her boyfriend.
Gableman in March issued a report calling on lawmakers to consider revoking the state’s 10 electoral votes for Joe Biden, who beat Trump in Wisconsin by about 21,000 votes. Vos had long opposed that idea because election experts — including Gableman’s own attorney, James Bopp Jr. — have found there is no way to legally perform that task.
Gableman acknowledged his suggestion was a “practical impossibility” two weeks later in a private memo to Vos that came to light this month.
Vos forced Gableman to reimburse taxpayers for the cost of his travel to a partisan event but publicly tolerated much of Gableman’s approach to the review. That changed after Gableman endorsed Steen and cut a robocall saying Vos “never wanted a real investigation.”
Gableman went further in a Monday appearance on former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon’s podcast, contending Vos had a role in stealing the 2020 election. (Recounts and court rulings in Wisconsin have confirmed Biden’s win and independent reviews have found no signs of significant voter fraud.)
“[Vos] oversaw the implementation of all the odious apparatus that the Wisconsin Elections Commission put to use to steal the election from — and I’m not even going to say from a particular candidate. I’m going to say they stole it from the voters and the good citizens of the state of Wisconsin,” Gableman said.
Gableman said Vos was afraid he would take public criticism if he challenged the state’s election system more vigorously and claimed Vos had told him he wanted to play down election issues.
“What he told me was that he didn’t think the election integrity issue was going to be a successful political platform for either he or other Republicans to run on and therefore he wanted to minimize all discussion and all conduct on it before the [2022] election,” Gableman said.
With his probe, Gableman turned up little information that was new. The reports he wrote mostly reiterated the findings of conservative groups that criticized how the election was run during the coronavirus pandemic.
Vos initially gave Gableman a taxpayer-funded budget of $676,000, but Vos and Gableman quickly blew past it as their legal bills mounted. The two lost a series of rulings and were found in contempt of court after the liberal watchdog group American Oversight sued them under the state’s open-records law.
Vos telegraphed Gableman’s firing after eking out his primary win, telling reporters on Tuesday night, “He’s an embarrassment to the state.”
Top Jan. 6 Investigator Fired From Post at the University of Virginia
The top staff investigator on the House committee scrutinizing the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol has been fired by the state’s new Republican attorney general from his position as the top lawyer for the University of Virginia, from which he was on leave while working on the congressional inquiry.
The office of the attorney general, Jason S. Miyares, said the firing of the investigator, Timothy J. Heaphy, was not related to the Jan. 6 investigation, but the move prompted an outcry from Democrats in the state, who accused him of taking the highly unusual action as a partisan move to further former President Donald J. Trump’s attempts to undermine the committee’s work.
“This is purely payback for Jan. 6 — there is no other reason that makes any sense,” said Scott Surovell, a top Democrat in the Virginia State Senate, who said that he knew of no other similar example in recent history where a new attorney general had immediately removed a school’s top lawyer. “In our state, we normally leave those decisions to the school’s board of visitors and president.”
Victoria LaCivita, a spokeswoman for Mr. Miyares, said: “The decision had nothing to do with the Jan. 6 committee or their investigations.”
In Virginia, the attorney general oversees a range of lawyers across the state, including the top lawyers at the colleges and universities that make up the vast public higher education system. The posts are typically held by career lawyers who are rarely replaced when new attorneys general take over.
In addition to dismissing Mr. Heaphy, Mr. Miyares also had the top lawyer at George Mason University removed.
Mr. Heaphy, a registered Democrat, had been the top lawyer at the University of Virginia since 2018. He served as a United States attorney in Virginia during the Obama administration and is married to the daughter of Eric K. Shinseki, the retired Army secretary who served as President Barack Obama’s secretary of veterans affairs. In 2017, on behalf of the City of Charlottesville, he completed a highly critical report of how the police handled the white nationalist rally that turned violent and led to the death of one woman and injured dozens.
In a written statement, the University of Virginia sidestepped the issue of whether his dismissal had been motivated by politics, but made clear that it had no role in it.
“University leaders are grateful to Tim for his outstanding service to our community and disappointed to see it come to an end,” said Brian Coy, a spokesman for the university. “If you have further questions about this matter, I would check with the attorney general’s office, as this was their decision to make.”
Mr. Heaphy — who attended undergraduate and law school at the University of Virginia, who has long lived in Charlottesville and whose son attends the school — declined to address why he was dismissed, saying that he was “disappointed” that his time at the university had come to an end and that he was confident that the school would continue “to thrive in the days to come.”
In two statements released on Sunday, the attorney general’s office said the firing was unrelated to the Jan. 6 inquiry. In the first, to The Associated Press, Ms. LaCivita said that Mr. Heaphy had been a “controversial” hire and that the “decision was made after reviewing the legal decisions made over the last couple of years.”
Key Figures in the Jan. 6 Inquiry
Card 1 of 17
“The attorney general wants the university counsel to return to giving legal advice based on law, and not the philosophy of a university,” she added.
In a subsequent statement, Ms. LaCivita said: “It is common practice for an incoming administration to appoint new staff that share the philosophical and legal approach of the attorney general. Every counsel serves at the pleasure of the attorney general.”
One top Virginia Republican said that Mr. Heaphy had angered some Republicans in the state by acting too independently in his job at the university and for his role in the university’s decision in 2020 to allow a student to post a highly critical sign about the school on their door. Mr. Heaphy had privately made the case to the school’s president that while the profanity on the sign was offensive, removing it would have infringed upon the student’s First Amendment rights.
On the House committee, Mr. Heaphy has worked behind the scenes, overseeing a staff of dozens of investigators who are examining how Mr. Trump and his allies sought to overturn the election and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
Mr. Heaphy is close to the committee’s vice chairwoman, Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, who has taken a highly aggressive approach to the inquiry.
Kim Potter trial: Minnesota state investigator outlines differences between gun and Taser
“I grabbed the wrong f***ing gun and I shot him,” she said afterward.
Potter is charged with first- and second-degree manslaughter for killing Wright, a 20-year-old Black man. Potter has pleaded not guilty and is expected to testify in her own defense.
On Monday, Special agent Sam McGinnis of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension described the Taser and gun differences in appearance, weight and positioning on Potter’s utility belt. McGinnis is a state investigative agent responsible for reviewing police shootings.
“The Taser is yellow; the firearm is black,” McGinnis said during questioning by the prosecution. “The Taser has a stocky body to it compared to the Glock handgun. The grip of the Taser is shorter and wider than the Glock.”
McGinnis’ analysis of the two weapons revealed marked differences in weight. Potter’s Glock handgun weighed 2.11 pounds, McGinnis said, compared to her Taser that weighed less than a pound. McGinnis said this meant the Glock with the ammo weighed over twice as much as the taser.
The state investigator also described differences in the ways the two weapons are fired.
“The Glock trigger is curved,” McGinnis told the jury. “The Taser trigger is flat with some serrations cut into it. The Taser has an external, I guess, ‘on’ (and) ‘off’ switch safety. The Glock does not.”
McGinnis also testified that he took photos of Potter after the shooting, which showed she kept her firearm and Taser on opposite sides of her body.
“Her firearm was on her dominant side, which you’d have to use your right hand to draw,” he said, noting her holster had a snap retention system to keep the gun in its holster.
The Taser, in contrast, was holstered on her left side, and required her to push a lever with her left hand to pull it from the holster.
Prosecutors have argued Potter was negligent and acted recklessly in the fatal mixup. Her defense has characterized the killing as an accident but argued she was within her rights to use deadly force to protect another officer.
Wright died from single gunshot wound to the chest, medical examiner says
Potter killed Wright by firing a single bullet to his chest, said Dr. Lorren Jackson, assistant medical examiner at the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office.
Jackson said Monday the gunshot wound was the sole cause of death for Wright and his manner of death was homicide.
“Was this a survivable injury?” the prosecutor asked Jackson.
No, he responded. Survival times for such an injury would be just seconds to minutes, he told the jury.
The bullet did not leave Wright’s body, he said, but “made a hole in the skin” otherwise known as a partial exit wound. He said he could feel the bullet directly below the skin.
Immediately after the shooting, Wright’s car veered across traffic and crashed into an occupied vehicle.
Wright had superficial, blunt force injuries to his face, including abrasions and lacerations to the lip, Jackson testified Monday. Yet he affirmed that the gunshot wound, which struck Wright’s heart, was the sole cause of death.
“Far and away the gunshot wound to the chest was the most significant injury,” he said.
Two other people were injured in the car crash after Wright was shot. Alayna Albrecht-Payton, who was in the passenger seat of Wright’s car, testified last week she suffered lacerations to her face and lip as well as a broken jaw and concussion.
In addition, Patricia Lundgren, 84, testified last week her 86-year-old husband was injured in the crash, and their daughter testified that her father’s mental state had deteriorated since then. He is now in hospice care, the family said.
In cross-examination of Jackson, the medical examiner indicated that Wright had a high level of THC in his system at the time of death consistent with marijuana use. Jackson said the use of marijuana had no bearing on Wright’s cause of death.
‘Clinton indictment’ blows Russia collusion conspiracy wide open, top GOP investigator says
The cybersecurity lawyer indicted this week by a grand jury in special counsel John Durham’s investigation could end up being the “fall guy” for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, warned a top House Republican.
Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, told Newsmax on Thursday there is evidence of a broad Russia collusion conspiracy — allegations the congressman’s team investigated and referred to the Justice Department. But, he cautioned the Clintons “have a long history of their lawyers and agents disappearing.”
Michael Sussmann, a former attorney from Perkins Coie, is accused of falsely telling the top FBI lawyer he had no clients when he was representing a technology executive and the Clinton campaign during a September 2016 meeting on possible links between former President Donald Trump and Russia. Sussmann pleaded not guilty to a charge of lying to the FBI on Friday, with lawyers insisting he never said he didn’t have clients and was representing only the technology executive at the meeting five years ago.
DURHAM NOT EXPECTED TO BRING CHARGES TIED TO INTEL ASSESSMENT ON RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE: REPORT
The Perkins Coie law firm has already been tied to the Russia matter. Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign manager, said in 2017 he authorized Marc Elias — another attorney who, up until recently, worked for Perkins Coie — to hire an outside firm to dig up dirt on Trump’s connections with Russia in 2016. This led to British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s discredited anti-Trump dossier.
Nunes contended evidence in the “slam dunk” indictment, which is 27 pages long, has solid evidence showing Sussmann was integral in helping the Clinton team develop the narrative there was a secret backchannel between Russia’s Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization. The FBI investigated the claims and could not find evidence to support them but not before the media reported on the inquiry and the Clinton campaign promoted the allegations leading up to the 2016 contest.
Beyond the “circumstantial evidence” the California Republican said he already had, the congressman said, “We now have emails and communications, and clearly, Durham’s done interviews in this.”
“I would hope that this is only the first of several other indictments,” said Nunes, adding there are government officials he still wants to be held accountable. But he stressed the new indictment does not look good for members of the Clinton campaign and others involved, some of whom have made their way into the Biden administration, such as White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan.
Nunes said Durham is “circling the wagons” and would “be surprised” if Sussmann did not reach a plea agreement.
“There was a conspiracy here,” Nunes said. “You’ve heard me talk about this for many, many years. The Clinton campaign conspired with really bad agents and bad actors within the FBI and other locations. So, this guy you’ve got lying to the FBI. We know people conspired to do this. Conspiracy is a major charge, and it can be very, very broad. That’s what I would like to see — was this the only guy that did it? Is he going to be the fall guy for the Clinton campaign? We’ve seen that in history, remember? We’ve seen people in history be the fall guy for the Clintons.”
Durham was a U.S. attorney appointed by former Attorney General William Barr to investigate the origins and conduct of the Trump-Russia investigation and received special counsel status last year to continue his work into the Biden administration.
Hillary Clinton greets supporters during a presidential primary Election Night rally in 2016. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)
Durham’s endeavor has long been criticized by Democrats and legal observers who claim the inquiry is meant to undercut Robert Mueller’s special investigation into alleged ties between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia. Still, Trump and his allies have championed it as a means to root out corrupt officials to settle political scores.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Mueller’s team was unable to find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. However, his report described 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice that Democrats seized on as a road map to impeachment. The investigation also led to several convictions and guilty pleas from Trump’s associates over charges unrelated to collusion with Russia.
In the more than two years he has conducted his inquiry into the genesis and conduct of the Russia investigation, Durham has not sought any charges related to conspiracy. So far, Durham has obtained only a single guilty plea from former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted to altering an email about a Trump campaign aide under government surveillance.
Recent reports suggest the prosecutor is considering criminal prosecutions of lower-level FBI agents and others as he investigates information provided to the FBI in 2016 that spurred on the Trump-Russia investigation.
Washington Examiner Videos
Tags: News, Hillary Clinton, Devin Nunes, Congress, John Durham, Justice Department
Original Author: Daniel Chaitin
Original Location: ‘Clinton indictment’ blows Russia collusion conspiracy wide open, top GOP investigator says
Saudi official made death threat against UN’s Khashoggi investigator: report
A Saudi official reportedly issued what was perceived as a death threat against a United Nations investigator following her investigation into the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Speaking to The Guardian, Agnès Callamard, the organization’s special rapporteur for extrajudicial killings, said she was alerted to the threat by a UN colleague in January 2020. Two threats were allegedly made toward Callamard by a Saudi official during a meeting of senior UN officials in Geneva, in which the official reportedly threatened to have her “taken care of” if she was not reined in by the UN.
“A death threat. That was how it was understood,” Callamard said when asked how her colleagues saw the statement.
After UN officials voiced alarm at the threat, other Saudi officials tried to reassure them that the threat should not be taken seriously, the Guardian reports. But after the officials left, the Saudi official remained and repeated their alleged threat to the UN officials.
“It was reported to me at the time and it was one occasion where the United Nations was actually very strong on that issue. People that were present, and also subsequently, made it clear to the Saudi delegation that this was absolutely inappropriate and that there was an expectation that this should not go further,” Callamard told the Guardian.
During the “high-level” meeting between Saudi diplomats in Geneva, visiting Saudi officials and senior UN officials, Callamard’s investigation into the Khashoggi killing was angrily criticized by the Saudis, Callamard said. The Saudi officials also reportedly baselessly claimed that Callamard had been paid by the Qatari government.
As the Guardian reports, Callamard’s 100-page report published in 2019 concluded there was “credible evidence” that Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman was behind Khashoggi’s death, along with other Saudi officials. The Saudi government has repeatedly denied that the crown prince ordered Khashoggi’s death.
The Biden administration has faced widespread criticism for its decision not to penalize the crown prince for Khashoggi’s killing, though it did issue sanctions and visa restrictions against other Saudi figures linked to the killing.
“This is a crucial step because it structurally addresses an unacceptable pattern of targeting, monitoring, harassment and threats to dissidents and journalists,” White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiOn The Money: New batch of stimulus payments to hit accounts Wednesday | Biden eyes T infrastructure package | Senate confirms Walsh as Labor secretary White House eyes sweeping T spending proposal Texas Democrat’s office reveals photos of crowded Border Patrol facility MORE said early in March when defending the administration’s decision. “Our national security team believes this going after the network responsible for these actions is the best way to prevent a crime like this from ever happening again.”
Top Saudi official issued death threat against UN’s Khashoggi investigator | Jamal Khashoggi
A senior Saudi official issued what was perceived to be a death threat against the independent United Nations investigator, Agnès Callamard, after her investigation into the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
In an interview with the Guardian, the outgoing special rapporteur for extrajudicial killings said that a UN colleague alerted her in January 2020 that a senior Saudi official had twice threatened in a meeting with other senior UN officials in Geneva that month to have Callamard “taken care of” if she was not reined in by the UN.
Asked how the comment was perceived by her Geneva-based colleagues, Callamard said: “A death threat. That was how it was understood.”
Callamard, a French national and human rights expert who will this month take on her new post as secretary general of Amnesty International, was the first official to publicly investigate and publish a detailed report into the 2018 murder of Khashoggi, a prominent former insider who used his column at the Washington Post to write critically about the Saudi government.
Callamard’s 100-page report, published in June 2019, concluded that there was “credible evidence” that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, and other senior Saudi officials were liable for the killing, and called the murder an “international crime”. The Biden administration has since released its own unclassified report, which concluded that Prince Mohammed had approved the murder. The Saudi government has denied the killing, which occurred in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, was ordered by the future king.
The Guardian independently corroborated Callamard’s account of the January 2020 episode.
The alleged threats were made, she said, at a “high-level” meeting between Geneva-based Saudi diplomats, visiting Saudi officials and UN officials in Geneva. During the exchange, Callamard was told, they criticised her work on the Khashoggi murder, registering their anger about her investigation and her conclusions. The Saudi officials also raised baseless allegations that she had received money from Qatar – a frequent refrain against critics of the Saudi government.
Callamard said one of the visiting senior Saudi officials is then alleged to have said that he had received phone calls from individuals who were prepared to “take care of her”.
When UN officials expressed alarm, other Saudis who were present sought to reassure them that the comment ought not to be taken seriously. The Saudi group then left the room but, Callamard was told, the visiting senior Saudi official stayed behind, and repeated the alleged threat to the remaining UN officials in the room.
Specifically, the visiting Saudi official said he knew people who had offered to “take care of the issue if you don’t”.
“It was reported to me at the time and it was one occasion where the United Nations was actually very strong on that issue. People that were present, and also subsequently, made it clear to the Saudi delegation that this was absolutely inappropriate and that there was an expectation that this should not go further,” Callamard said.
While Callamard has in the past discussed the threats she has faced in her work as a special rapporteur, including by the Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte, details of the alleged Saudi threat are being revealed in the Guardian for the first time.
The development will probably bolster the view of human rights experts that Saudi Arabia’s government has acted with impunity in the wake of Khashoggi’s 2018 murder, including through arbitrary arrests of critics of the prince, as well as his potential political rivals.
The Saudi government did not respond to emailed requests for comment, which the Guardian sent to the Saudi foreign ministry, the Saudi embassy in London and the Saudi embassy in Washington.
“You know, those threats don’t work on me. Well, I don’t want to call for more threats. But I have to do what I have to do. It didn’t stop me from acting in a way which I think is the right thing to do,” Callamard said.