SILICON VALLEY'S SCAM HAS BEEN LEAKED AND THEY ARE SO TOTALLY, AND COMPLETELY, F*CKED
- As if all of the sex cult connections to Silicon Valley oligarchs were not bad enough...along come the big leak!
Justice Department to Open Epic, New Antitrust Review of Big Tech Companies
Inquiry signals Barr’s deep interest in tech sector, poses threat to companies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple
WASHINGTON—The Justice Department is opening a broad antitrust review into whether dominant technology firms are unlawfully stifling competition, according to department officials, adding a new Washington threat for companies such as Facebook Inc., Alphabet Inc. ’s Google, Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc.
The review is geared toward examining the practices of online platforms that dominate internet search, social media and retail services, the officials said.
The new antitrust inquiry is the strongest signal yet of Attorney General William Barr’s deep interest in the tech sector, and it could ratchet up the already considerable regulatory pressures facing the top U.S. tech firms. The review is designed to go above and beyond recent plans for scrutinizing the tech sector that were crafted by the department and the Federal Trade Commission.
The two agencies, which share antitrust enforcement authority, in recent months worked out which one of them would take the lead on exploring different issues involving the big-four tech giants. Those turf agreements caused a stir in the tech industry and rattled investors. Now, the new Justice Department review could amplify the risk, because some of those companies could face antitrust claims from both the Justice Department and the FTC.
The FTC in February created its own task force to monitor competition in the tech sector; that team’s work is ongoing.
The Justice Department will examine issues including how the most dominant tech firms have grown in size and might—and expanded their reach into additional businesses. The Justice Department also is interested in how Big Tech has leveraged the powers that come with having very large networks of users, the officials said.
There is no defined end-goal yet for the Big Tech review other than to understand whether there are antitrust problems that need addressing, but a broad range of options are on the table, the officials said. The department’s inquiry could eventually lead to more focused investigations of specific company conduct, they said.
The review also presents risks for the companies beyond whether antitrust issues are identified. The department won’t ignore other company practices that may raise concerns about compliance with other laws, officials said.
The Justice Department already has been preparing to probe whether Alphabet Inc.’s Google is engaging in unlawful monopolization practices. The Wall Street Journal on May 31 reported the department’s plans for that investigation, whose existence hasn’t been confirmed by Justice Department.
The department’s antitrust division will conduct both reviews; it is unknown if and when the two efforts will intersect. On the broader tech review, the division will work in close coordination with Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, the officials said.
The department appears to be hitting the ground running. It recently hosted a private presentation where officials heard from critics of Facebook, including academics, who walked through their concerns about the social-media giant and advocated for its breakup, according to people familiar with that meeting. Tech and antitrust observers believed issues related to Facebook’s dominance were to be handled by the FTC.
Both the FTC and the Justice Department have made clear that they view tech-sector competition issues as a priority.
Under agreements brokered in recent months between Justice Department antitrust chief Makan Delrahim and FTC Chairman Joseph Simons, the Justice Department obtained clearance to proceed with a probe of whether Google has engaged in illegal monopolization tactics, as well as jurisdiction over Apple for similar issues. The FTC, meanwhile, won for itself the right to explore monopolization questions involving Facebook and Amazon. (The commission already has undertaken a lengthy consumer-protection investigation of Facebook’s privacy practices, and the company has agreed to a $5 billion fine.)
Justice Department officials said those agreements weren’t meant to be open-ended or all-encompassing. But in any case the department isn’t trying to pre-empt the FTC’s work, they said, and suggested the two agencies might explore different tech practices by the same company, as well as different legal theories for possible cases.
The two agencies have been in regular contact at both the leadership and staff levels to coordinate their efforts, according to a person familiar with the discussions.
Representatives for Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Big Tech companies have said they are highly innovative firms that create jobs and provide products and services that consumers love. They have said they have rightly won their places at the top of the tech pyramid and have to compete fiercely to stay there.
But while the top tech firms were once the darlings of the public, attitudes have shifted as some consumers, and politicians on both the left and the right, have grown uncomfortable with how much power and influence they wield in the economy and society. Some Democratic presidential candidates have called for the breakup of companies like Google and Facebook, while lawmakers of both parties have sounded alarm bells, though at times for different reasons. Some Republicans have voiced concerns about whether tech companies disfavor conservative voices, claims that industry leaders have denied.
President Trump has escalated his criticisms of Big Tech recently, openly suggesting the U.S. ought to sue Google and Facebook, comments that could hang over the Justice Department’s new efforts.
Aside from Justice Department and FTC scrutiny, a House antitrust subcommittee also is taking a broad look at potential anticompetitive conduct in the tech sector. Executives from Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon all testified before the panel last week.
Seeds for the new Justice Department review were planted in January at Mr. Barr’s confirmation hearing, when he said that he believed antitrust issues in the tech sector were important.
Share Your Thoughts
What do you think the Justice Department’s new antitrust inquiry should focus on? Join the conversation below.
“I don’t think big is necessarily bad, but I think a lot of people wonder how such huge behemoths that now exist in Silicon Valley have taken shape under the nose of the antitrust enforcers,” Mr. Barr told senators. “You can win that place in the marketplace without violating the antitrust laws, but I want to find out more about that dynamic.”
Justice Department officials said they would use the new antitrust review to seek extensive input and information from industry participants, and eventually from the dominant tech firms themselves. It isn’t yet known whether much of the information-gathering will be done on a voluntary basis or if companies eventually could be compelled by the government to turn over materials.
—Ryan Tracy contributed to this article.
Write to Brent Kendall at firstname.lastname@example.org
HOW PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE BRIBED BY SILICON VALLEY
- "DARK MONEY" IS THE WAY THAT CORRUPT POLITICAL CRIMINALS EXCHANGE COMPENSATION, BRIBES AND INFLUENCE WITHOUT THE FBI CATCHING THEM
- This is about a group of tech oligarchs, and their corrupt Senators, who commit crimes in order to manipulate over a trillion tax dollars (YOUR MONEY) into their, and their friends pockets.
- They are felons yet they control some of the offices of the agencies who are supposed to arrest them. Silicon Valley bought K Street and U.S. Senators, gave them more Dark Money than history has ever seen and then had giant tech-law firms bribe, hit-job and blockade any attempts to solve the problem.
- Some of the largest bribes in American history were paid via billions of dollars of pre-IPO cleantech stock, insider trading, real estate, Google search engine rigging and shadow-banning, sex workers, revolving door jobs, nepotism, state-supported black-listing of competitors and under-the-table cash. Why are these Silicon Valley Oligarchs and their K-Street law firms and lobbyists immune from the law?
U.S. Senators, Agency Heads and Congress are bribed with: Billions of dollars of Google, Twitter, Facebook, Tesla, Netflix and Sony Pictures stock and stock warrants which is never reported to the FEC; Billions of dollars of Google, Twitter, Facebook, Tesla, Netflix and Sony Pictures search engine rigging and shadow-banning which is never reported to the FEC; Free rent; Male and female prostitutes; Cars; Dinners; Party Financing; Sports Event Tickets; Political campaign printing and mailing services "Donations"; Secret PAC Financing; Jobs in Corporations in Silicon Valley For The Family Members of Those Who Take Bribes And Those Who Take Bribes; "Consulting" contracts from McKinsey as fronted pay-off gigs; Overpriced "Speaking Engagements" which are really just pay-offs conduited for donors; Private jet rides and use of Government fuel depots (ie: Google handed out NASA jet fuel to staff); Real Estate; Fake mortgages; The use of Cayman, Boca Des Tores, Swiss and related money-laundering accounts; The use of HSBC, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Deustche Bank money laundering accounts and covert stock accounts; Free spam and bulk mailing services owned by Silicon Valley corporations; Use of high tech law firms such as Perkins Coie, Wilson Sonsini, MoFo, Covington & Burling, etc. to conduit bribes to officials; and other means now documented by us, The FBI, the FTC, The SEC, The FEC and journalists.
David Brock’s Media Matters gave a $930,000 cash grant to David Brock’s Franklin Education Forum
David Brock’s Franklin Education Forum credited the Bonner Group for raising those funds, triggering the 12.5% commission
David Brock paid the Bonner Group a $124,250 commission to solicit a cash grant … from himself!
IT DOESN’T STOP THERE
After the Franklin Education Forum retained $869,750, they sent a $816,224 cash grant to David Brock’s The Franklin Forum:
Note: The ‘Franklin Education Forum’ is a 501(c)3, and ‘The Franklin Forum’ is a 501(c)4. They are not the same company.
Since The Franklin Forum 501(c)4 paid Bonner a commission in 2013, it’s safe to assume fundraiser received a $102,028 commission in 2014. Unfortunately, it’s hard to tell for sure. They still haven’t filed their taxes for 2014!
Say, for example, you donate $1,062,857 to Media Matters for America. This is how David Brock would have used your charitable donation in 2014:
In the end, Brock’s solicitor would have pocketed $350,825, almost a third of your initial donation! That’s a far cry from the advertised 12.5% commission.
As bizarre as that scenario may sound, this is exactly what David Brock did in 2014.
HOW CAN WE BE SURE THIS IS INTENTIONAL?
David Brock is the Chairman for each of these organizations! How could he not know what’s going on?
He’s a hands-on Chairman. According to their tax returns, Brock allocates time, weekly, to his organizations:
Furthermore, the New York Times reports that David Brock shares a summer rental in the Hamptons with Mary Pat Bonner, the President of the Bonner Group!
David Brock will have a hard time claiming ignorance on this. These transfers are intentional. He vacations with his solicitor. Case closed.
STILL NOT CONVINCED?
David Brock didn’t even bother to give his organizations different phone numbers. They all share the same phone number!
We even located the Bonner Group’s solicitation agreement with Media Matters on Florida’s Gift Givers’ Guide. Clarification on their commission can be found on page 2:
In English: Contractually, David Brock has the option to exclude certain contributions from triggering the commission. In spite of this option, he intentionally chooses to trigger the 12.5% commission for money grants between his organizations.
Note: Yes, we are making the assumption that all of Brock’s organizations have the same solicitation agreement with the Bonner Group. Given that his organizations share the same address, board members, and telephone number, we feel it’s safe to assume they also share the same solicitation agreement.
THIS BARELY SCRATCHES THE SURFACE
Utilizing public facing tax returns, along with records submitted to the FEC, we mapped out all the significant money transfers from 2014 that took place in Brock’s office:
This is all from just one year!
I have been asking myself lately; how were there so many corrupt people in the Obama Administration? The only answer I can come up with is that Barack Obama himself was a very corrupt person. Who else would have had so many corrupt people that he chose or tolerated in his Administration.
Do you remember Lois Lerner from the IRS and Barack Obama asking her to go after his political rivals using the most feared government agencies, the IRS. The last place you want to be is between the government and your money.
Obama Attorney General Eric Holder who was found in Contempt of Congress for lying to Congress and looking the other way on every illegal act Obama or someone in his administration perpetrated.
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, earned his spot among Obama’s corrupt appointees thanks to his admitted role in the “green energy” scams, specifically the Solyndra scandal in which the Obama gave more than $500 million to a failed company and one of its key investors, Obama backer George Kaiser.
Do not forget Obama’s corrupt cabinet appointee Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, she was guilty of violating the Hatch Act by campaigning for the president in her official capacity. Violators of this act are normally fired, but Obama would not allow his AG Eric Holder to do any such thing. So Sibelius got off without punishment after claiming she said she "... got a little caught up in the notion that the gains which had been made would clearly not continue without the president’s reelection..."
I am not even going into the details of the corrupt John Brennan former CIA Director and James Clapper Director of National Intelligence.
And let us not forget about the most corrupt person Obama appointed and that was Hillary Clinton.
After thinking about all of the people above how could we not think Obama himself was the Godfather of this mob?
Now let us add another and that is James Comey, former disgraced FBI Director. Politico is reporting that on Friday night the FBI released a two-page summary former disgraced FBI Director James Comey used to brief then President-elect Donald Trump on the “dossier” about Trump’s ties to Russia. ( https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-doj-records-showing-numerous-bruce-ohr-communications-with-fusion-gps-and-christopher-steele/ )
The document, asserts that Christopher Steele, the person who compiled the dossier, was working “on behalf of private clients” in his investigation of Trump’s possible ties to Russia. Comey was not honest to the court because Steele was actually working for the DNC and Clinton campaign. Comey also did not inform the court or President-Elect Trump Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party paid the Russian government via Steele and Fusion GPS for the opposition research document. Why didn’t Comey inform the court or President-Elect Trump that the information came from the Russian government: because then he would be admitting that the true collusion was between Hillary, the Democratic Party and Russia.
No matter which political party corruption is found in we must drain the swamp of all these corrupt people and prosecute them if we actually want to improve the political climate in the United States.
The key suspects under investigation for the crimes, attacks on the public and manipulation of Democracy include:
Amy Pascal; Bill Daley; Bill Lockyer; Brian Goncher; Daniel Cohen; David Axelrod; David Drummond; David Plouffe; David E. Shaw; Dianne Feinstein; Elon Musk; Eric Holder; Eric Schmidt; John Zaccarro, Jr.; Frank Giustra; Nick Denton; Harry Reid; Haim Saban; Hillary and Bill Clinton; Ira Ehrenpreis; Jay Carney; James Comey; Jared Cohen; Jeffrey Katzenberg; John Doerr; Harvey Weinstein; Yasmin Green; Jonathan Silver; Ken Brody; Lachlan Seward; Judge Stewart M. Bernstein; Larry Page; Google; Alphabet; YouTube; Facebook; In-Q-Tel; Amazon; Twitter; WordPress.Org; The Law Firm of Perkins Coi; Mark Zuckerberg; Martin LaGod; Matt Rogers; Marc Benioff; Michael Birch; S. Donald Sussman; Pierre Omidyar; Rahm Emanual; Raj Gupta; Ray Lane; Tom Perkins; Robert Rubin; Rob Friedman; Reid Hoffman; Richard Blum; Robert Gibbs; Robert Shwarts; Roger Altman; The Law Firm of Covington and Burling; Sanford Robertson; Steve Jurvetson; Steve Rattner; Steve Westly; Steven Chu; Steve Spinner; Susie Tompkins Buell; George Soros; Warren Buffet; Tom Steyer; The Clinton Foundation, Tim Draper; Valarie Jarrett; Jeffrey Epstein; Vinod Khosla; Michelle Lee; The law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosatti; Lawrence Summers; Marc Andreessen Sheryl Sandberg; Yuri Milner; Fenwick & West LLP; James W. Breyer; McBee Strategic; Mike Sheehy; Nancy Pelosi; Gilman Louie; Thomas J. Kim; Ping Li; Greylock Capital, Accel Partners; Jim Swartz; Bank Menatep; Alisher Asmanov; Marc L. Andreessen; Peter Thiel; Clarion Capital; Richard Wolpert; Robert Ketterson; David Kilpatrick; Tesla Motors; Solyndra; BrightSource; IDG Capital Partners; Goldman Sachs; Morgan Stanley; State Street Corporation; JP Morgan Chase; Lloyd Blankfein; Jamie Dimon; Steve Cutler; Rodgin Cohen; Sullivan Cromwell, LLP; Jeff Markey; Steve McBee; Michael F. McGowan; Toni Townes-Whitley; CGI Federal; Todd Y. Park; Frank M. Sands, Sr.; Robin Yangong Li; Parker Zhang; Jonathan Goodman; Gawker Media; Jalopnik; Adrian Covert, John Herrman; Gizmodo Media; K2 Intelligence; WikiStrat; Podesta Group; Fusion GPS; Think Progress; Media Matters; Black Cube; Debbie Wasserman, The DNC Executive Committee; Correct The Record; Stratfor; ShareBlue; Sid Blumenthal; David Brock; Barack Obama; Sen. Robert Menendez; Jerry Brown; Ken Alex; Susan Rice; Kamala Harris; Bruce Ohr; Nellie Ohr; and other names to be identified in court...
These parties appear to have exploited taxpayer government resources to line their pockets at tax payer expense as proven by finance reports, FEC filings, Congressional studies, Panama Papers, espionage journalism, state election reporting forms, Goldman Sachs and ICIJ Swiss Leaks documents and journalists, on-staff whistle-blowers, covert accounts revelations, forensic audits, Congressional action comparison charts and other evidence. Connected on XKEYSCORE, FBI, Palantir, Linkedin and other investigative databases. Confirmed in cross-over financial dealings and transfers. Sourced as beneficiaries and financiers of the activities.