Tag: police state

Former CIA coder sentenced to 40 years in prison for WikiLeaks ‘Vault 7’ breach

A federal judge sentenced former CIA programmer Joshua Schulte to 40 years in prison on Thursday afternoon on espionage charges for the largest leak in agency history, in addition to child pornography convictions.

Comparing the WikiLeaks “Vault 7” leak of top secret Central Intelligence Agency cyber-espionage tools to a “digital Pearl Harbor,” U.S District Judge Jesse Furman said Thursday he was “blown away by Mr. Schulte’s complete lack of remorse and acceptance of responsibility.”

“The impact on our nation’s intelligence operations was enormous and we will likely never know the extent of the damage caused, but no doubt it was massive and real,” Furman said before imposing the 480-month sentence.

“It did have, as substantiated by the deputy director’s unclassified letter and even more substantiated by a confidential letter, an immediate and catastrophic effect on the CIA, and caused untold damage to national security,” the Obama-appointed judge said at the conclusion of the two-hour sentencing hearing.

Furman sentenced Schulte to 400 months imprisonment on the espionage counts and separately to 80 months for child pornography counts.

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York asked for the judge to impose a sentence of life prison for Schulte’s convictions of what they called “some of the most heinous, brazen violations of the Espionage Act in American history.”

“Schulte’s theft of an arsenal of extremely sensitive intelligence-gathering cyber-tools from the Central Intelligence Agency and subsequent dissemination of that information to WikiLeaks — which in turn publicized it to America’s adversaries — is ‘one of the largest unauthorized disclosures of classified information in the history of the United States’,” prosecutors wrote in a sentencing letter.

Schulte, who has been detained at federal jails in Manhattan and Brooklyn for over six and a half years, requested nine years’ imprisonment followed by five years’ supervised release.

Federal prosecutors argued an additional terrorism enhancement on his sentence was warranted because Schulte’s theft of the arsenal of extremely sensitive, intelligence-gathering cyber-tools from the Central Intelligence Agency — and subsequent dissemination of that information to WikiLeaks — was intended to satisfy a personal vendetta and “clearly calculated to retaliate against the United States as a whole.”

The 35-year-old asked for a sentence of time served, citing the “immoral human rights abuses” he says he endured during his pretrial detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center, a federal jail in Sunset Park, Brooklyn.

In his lengthy 28-minute sentencing statement, Schulte decried the conditions of his “torture cage” at the Bureau of Prison facility, calling it “New York City’s very own Auschwitz,” and “something only the SS could come up with.”

Judge Furman during sentencing called Schulte’s comparison to Nazi concentration camps “offensive”.

Keep reading

The Loosening of Rules on Informed Consent

On January 22, 2024, amendments to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations (21 CFR 50) covering Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) were finalized and implemented. The amendments added a new section 50.22 that allows for exceptions to informed consent requirements for minimal risk research. 

While the addition of section 50.22 harmonizes FDA IRB regulations with the Dept of Health and Human Services (DHHS) IRB regulations (known as the Common Rule: 45 CFR 46) that are administered by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), the handling of the Covid shots over the past 3-4 years should raise red flags. 

Currently, I am chair of an IRB at a private-not-for-profit outpatient healthcare agency that does research in which vulnerable populations are recruited. As such, I’m well aware that the foundational documents from which the OHRP developed the regulatory framework under which IRBs operate are the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report. 

Back in October 2023, my first Brownstone post, Where is the Office for Human Research Protections, asked the question as to how the approval of a Phase 3 research pharmaceutical product (mRNA vaccines) could be done without the formal involvement of IRBs. Specifically, the Nuremberg Code, covering informed consent, and the Belmont Report, covering among other elements, bodily autonomy, which are foundational to oversight of human subject research, and the requirement for a data and safety monitoring plan were completely discarded. Was the OHRP consulted for its input, and if not, did anyone from OHRP express concern? Given that these protections were put in place in response to medical atrocities (the Holocaust and the Tuskegee experiments), you’d think that they’d be sacrosanct. Think again!

While not providing a direct answer to the question I posed, Debbie Lerman’s posts, Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight and Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two, and Sasha Latypova’s post, EUA Countermeasures Are Neither Investigational nor Experimental, provided a detailed roadmap as to the actions that were actually taken in implementing Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Covid shot. To me, the most significant finding was that the legality of using EUA in civilian populations is rather tenuous, at best. 

With the foregoing as a backdrop, let’s get into the nuts and bolts of the new FDA regulations, noting that in addition to being chair of an IRB, I am also a retired physician, who has been in the healthcare field for 50 years. This includes 19 years of direct patient care in a rural setting as a Board Certified Internist, 17 years of clinical research at a private-not-for-profit outpatient healthcare agency, and over 35 years of involvement in public health, and health systems infrastructure and administration. As such, I bring a breadth of training, knowledge, and experience to this matter that is fairly unique.

Keep reading

CRIMINAL FDA DECLARES INFORMED CONSENT NULL AND VOID

If we’ve learned one thing over the last three years, it’s that abiding by centuries-old medical ethics, like asking questions, is what White Supremacists™ and domestic terrorists do.

Via the soon-to-be-memory-holed American Medical Association webpage on informed consent:

“Informed consent to medical treatment is fundamental in both ethics and law. Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care. Successful communication in the patient-physician relationship fosters trust and supports shared decision making.

The process of informed consent occurs when communication between a patient and physician results in the patient’s authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention.”

That was then.

This is now, when respecting the Science™ requires that you shut your filthy masked mouth and do whatever corporate media news actors and Public Health™ technocrats tell you to do.

Via Federal Register:

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to implement a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act). This final rule allows an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of human subjects. The final rule permits an institutional review board (IRB) to waive or alter certain informed consent elements or to waive the requirement to obtain informed consent, under limited conditions, for certain FDA-regulated minimal risk clinical investigations.”

Branch COVIDians surely don’t care about any of this, as they gave up long ago exercising their former right to be fully informed of medical experimentation risks anyway. In fact, they brag about their ignorance and apathy and doglike obedience as if they are virtues.

Listen to the New York NAACP lady explain:

“We must take the vaccine. Now, I’m going to tell you a personal story off script. So, today right after this I am going to have an infusion, and I’m going to have an infusion because I want to make sure that the cancer that was in my body does not return. I’m not asking what’s in the infusion, I’m not looking up all of the ingredients in the infusion, I am sticking out my arm and I am taking the infusion, and that’s what we have to do.” [seal-like clapping from the masked retards behind her]

Keep reading

Texas AG Paxton sues cities over marijuana decriminalization

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is suing five Texas cities over their decriminalization of marijuana.

In a Wednesday press release, the office of the attorney general (OAG) said it was suing the cities for “instructing police not to enforce Texas drug laws concerning possession and distribution of marijuana.

The drug, the OAG added, is one that “psychologists have increasingly linked to psychosis and other negative consequences.”

Paxton’s suit comes amid a broader push by the conservative state government to exert authority over its left-leaning cities.

The five cities targeted in Wednesday’s suit are Austin, San Marcos, Killeen, Elgin and Denton, each of which enacted laws decriminalizing marijuana one to three years ago. Paxton did not clarify why he chose to bring the lawsuit now.

Although none of the cities has legalized the drug — which would allow it to be bought and sold openly — each has passed ordinances directing police and prosecutors to deprioritize pressing charges against people holding small amounts of cannabis.

In Austin, for example, a 2020 city council resolution directed police not to press charges against those caught with less than 4 ounces of marijuana.

In November 2022, voters in the other cities now being sued by Paxton resoundingly approved ballot measures that decriminalized up to the same limit — though these reforms have drawn resistance from local law enforcement.

Keep reading

Calling Someone ‘Transphobic’ In Florida Could Cost Accusers $35,000 Or More Under New Law

In what could very clearly become the slipperiest of slopes, a bill introduced in the Florida Senate would make calling someone ‘transphobic’ , ‘homophobic’ , racist, or sexist a form of defamation.

Introduced on Friday, SB 1780 “Defamation, False Light, and Unauthorized Publication of Name or Likeness,” would make it easier for people to sue each other for defamation.

According to the bill, “an allegation that the plaintiff has discriminated against another person or group because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity constitutes defamation per se,” which means that even when said allegations are false, they are automatically defamatory – meaning that anyone accused of said ‘isms’ wouldn’t have to prove “actual malice,” a higher standard set for defamation suits following a 1964 Supreme Court case, New York Times vs. Sullivan.

In instances where someone is accused of homophobia or transphobia, defendants charged with defamation wouldn’t be allowed to use the plaintiff’s religious or scientific beliefs as part of their defense, and could face fines of at least $35,000.

The bill, which has a counterpart in the Florida House (HB 757), would also significantly narrow the definition of “public figure” in defamation lawsuits to exclude non-elected or appointed public employees, as well as individuals who became publicly known for defending themselves against accusations – either by giving interviews or being the subject of a viral “video, image, or statement uploaded on the Internet,” CBS News reports.

The bill also weakens protections for anonymous sources for journalists – and classifies their statements as “presumptively false,” making journalists vulnerable to lawsuits.

Keep reading

Lawmakers and Tech CEOs Push Online Age and ID Verification Proposals During Hearing on Child Safety

As we reported previously, US lawmakers are intent on pushing online ID, age verification, and causing an end to online anonymity – despite constitutional concerns.

And during a hearing today, tech CEOs supported proposals that would greatly expand the requirements for online ID verification and erode the ability to use the internet without connecting your online activity to your identity.

The proposals are being pushed in the name of protecting children online but would impact anyone who doesn’t want to tie all of their online speech and activity to their real ID – over surveillance or censorship concerns.

In response to criticism from lawmakers, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg pushed for far-reaching online age verification standards that would impose age verification at the app store level — a proposal that would mean the vast majority of mobile app usage could be tied to a person’s official identity.

Keep reading

Adam Kinzinger Admits Patriot Front Members are Feds

Actual American patriots have become fed up with the group Patriot Front crashing legitimate America First protests. Last week, patriots decided to chase Patriot Front members away from their event and, in the process of removing the unwanted guests, exposed the faces of Patriot Front members. Adam Kinzinger became angry at America First patriots for removing Patriot Front from their event. During his rant, Kinzinger admitted that Patriot Front is a fed psyop.

Video shows attendees of an America First event asking the members of Patriot Front to leave their event.

Adam Kinzinger responded to this video with a tweet that read, “These people (all blue checks) are celebrating a seemingly MAGA assault on federal officers. Now I don’t know what this really is, but take a gander at the comments of the “patriots” who “love” America.”

Following the tweet, Kinzinger sent out another tweet, “Hey Denver I guess I just admitted they were all Feds “on accident” in a Twitter post. My special knowledge just accidentally popped out and can’t put that genie back in the bottle! They are alllllll Feds I also used to disperse chemtrails. Uh oh don’t hit send Adam…”

Keep reading

Insiders: Biden admin. working to ban private sales of gun sales

Sources inside the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) say the White House has directed the agency to draft a document supporting an effective ban on private sales of firearms.

That’s according to the watchdog group, Empower Oversight.

Empower Oversight is requesting records related to what it calls the “unconstitutional measure.”

According to the sources, “at the direction of the White House, the ATF has drafted a 1,300-page document in support of a rule that would effectively ban private sales of firearms from one citizen to another by requiring background checks for every sale. The document’s drafting is reportedly being overseen by Senior Policy Counsel Eric Epstein, who worked as the Phoenix Field Office’s Division Counsel during Operation Wide Receiver (a precursor of Operation Fast and Furious).”

Keep reading

Democrats urge Biden administration to deschedule marijuana

Senate Democrats are putting new pressure on the Biden administration to ease federal restrictions on marijuana in a new letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration on Tuesday as it considers rescheduling cannabis after it was federally classified more than five decades ago.

The Department of Health and Human Services formally recommended in August that the DEA move the drug from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, or CSA, prompting a monthslong review, which continues.

The letter, from 12 senators led by Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and John Fetterman, D-Pa., and signed by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., goes further.

“The case for removing marijuana from Schedule I is overwhelming. The DEA should do so by removing cannabis from the CSA altogether, rather than simply placing it in a lower schedule,” the senators wrote in the letter, first obtained by NBC News.

Rescheduling the drug or removing it entirely would have significant implications for the marijuana industry and for cannabis users, some of whom consume it for medical purposes.

Since 1971, cannabis has been under Schedule I, the highest classification of the CSA, along with drugs like heroin and LSD, which the government formally considers to have high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.

Keep reading

Senators Tell DEA To Fully Legalize Marijuana, Demanding Answers On Rescheduling Process

Twelve senators are calling on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to fully legalize cannabis and answer questions about the agency’s ongoing scheduling review.

In a letter sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram on Monday, the lawmakers—led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and John Fetterman (D-PA), along with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and other champions of marijuana reform—denounced the “devastating impact” and “out of step” policy of prohibition, arguing that cannabis should be fully removed from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Doing so would present a “rare opportunity to shape the new cannabis industry from the ground up, designing a federal regulatory system untainted by the corporate capture that has influenced alcohol and tobacco regulations, and advancing federal cannabis reforms that acknowledge and repair the harms of cannabis criminalization.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has recommended that DEA move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA following a scientific review that concluded cannabis does have therapeutic applications and is less harmful than other controlled substances on lower schedules. DEA makes the final decision, however, and is not bound by the HHS recommendation.

“While rescheduling to Schedule III would mark a significant step forward, it would not resolve the worst harms of the current system,” the senators’ letter, which was first reported by NBC News, says. “Thus, the DEA should deschedule marijuana altogether.”

The lawmakers acknowledged that incremental rescheduling “would have some important policy benefits,” however, such as eliminating barriers to research and federal employment for medical cannabis patients, as well as allowing state-licensed marijuana businesses to take federal tax deductions that they’re currently barred from utilizing under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E.

Keep reading